Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1997

Maillard v. Maillard

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York · Decided October 6, 1997

243 A.D.2d 448; 663 N.Y.S.2d 67; 1997 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 9339

Cases that cite this one

25 later published cases cite this decision.

Robustelli v. Robustelli (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 1999)
Kelleher v. Mt. Kisco Medical Group, P. C. (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 1999)
Matter of Remsen v. Remsen (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2021)
MCLEOD, NATHAN v. TACCONE, MARK J. (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2014)
Duma v. Edgar (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2009)
Kumar v. Kumar (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2009)
Ndulo v. Ndulo (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2009)
Blauman-Spindler v. Blauman (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2009)
Rogers v. Rogers (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2008)
Moog v. City of New York (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2006)
Susskind v. Susskind (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2005)
Kerman v. Friedman (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2005)
Pryzant v. City of New York (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2002)
In re the Estate of Weinstock (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2001)
Siegman v. Rosen (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2000)
Lones v. Lampeas (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2000)
Settembrini v. Settembrini (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2000)
Fitterer v. Gus Riedlinger's Towing Service, Inc. (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2000)
Osterhoudt v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2000)
Schittino v. State (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 1999)
Madonna v. Madonna (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 1999)
Pearl v. Pearl (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 1999)
Dexter v. Horowitz Management (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 1999)
Gorokhova v. Belulovich (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 1999)
Rankin v. Miller (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 1998)

This list shows which later cases cite this one. It does not say how they treated it, and no review of that has been done. Not a substitute for Shepard’s or KeyCite — verify before relying.

Opinion of the Court

—In an action for a divorce and ancil*449lary relief, the plaintiff wife appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Nassau County (Adams, J.), dated July 15, 1996, which granted the motion of the defendant husband, pursuant to CPLR 3126, to preclude the plaintiff from offering any evidence at trial on the issue of her income or expenses relative to a certain videotape and which awarded the defendant $1,912.50 in counsel fees.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.

In order to invoke the drastic remedy of preclusion, the court must determine that the offending party’s lack of cooperation with disclosure was willful, deliberate, and contumacious (see, CPLR 3126 [2]; Vatel v City of New York, 208 AD2d 524). Here, the record fully supports the decision of the Supreme Court to invoke that remedy. The plaintiff created and admitted that she had worked on marketing a videotape business. However, the plaintiff claims to have no financial interest whatsoever in that business, and, at her deposition, she refused to answer questions concerning the business. After being instructed by the Referee to answer the questions posed to her, the plaintiff asserted a complete lack of recollection as to anything she or anyone else ever did or said regarding the videotape business. The plaintiffs testimony was patently incredible, and her lack of cooperation was clearly willful, deliberate, and contumacious. Furthermore, having asserted a complete lack of control over other principals and records of the videotape business, the plaintiff should not then be permitted to simply produce these witnesses or records at trial to support her position (see, Vera v Beth Israel Med. Ctr., 175 AD2d 716).

We find no merit to the plaintiffs remaining contentions. Mangano, P. J., Rosenblatt, Pizzuto and Luciano, JJ., concur.

Case-law data current through December 31, 2025. Source: CourtListener bulk data.