Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2001

Bodine v. Ladjevardi

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York · Decided June 11, 2001

284 A.D.2d 351; 726 N.Y.S.2d 129; 2001 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 6253

Cases that cite this one

9 later published cases cite this decision.

Field v. Bao (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2016)
Workman v. Town of Southampton (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2010)
Umar v. Ohrnberger (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2010)
Morgenstern v. Jeffsam Corp. (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2010)
McArthur v. New York City Housing Authority (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2008)
Suazo-Alvarez v. Nordlaw, LLC (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2008)
Kroll v. Parkway Plaza Joint Venture (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2004)
Voss v. 87-10 51st Avenue Owners Corp. (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2002)
Reid v. Schoenthal (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2001)

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, inter alia, to recover damages for fraud, the plaintiff appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Westchester County (Cowhey, J.), entered March 7, 2000, which granted the separate motions of the defendant Shahriar Ahy and the defendants Hamid Ladjevardi, Baltic Fund 1, L.P., Baltic Fund 1, L. L. C., and Baltic Management, L. L. C., pursuant to CPLR 3126 to dismiss the amended verified complaint insofar as asserted against them based on the plaintiff’s failure to comply with court-ordered discovery.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.

*352The trial court properly dismissed the amended verified complaint insofar as asserted against the respondents. It is within the discretion of the trial court to determine the nature and degree of the penalty to be imposed against a party who "refuses to obey an order for disclosure or wilfully fails to disclose information which the court finds ought to have been disclosed” (CPLR 3126; see, DeJulio v Wulf, 260 AD2d 425; Kubacka v Town of N. Hempstead, 240 AD2d 374; Soto v City of Long Beach, 197 AD2d 615). The plaintiffs willful and contumacious conduct can be inferred from his numerous adjournments of scheduled depositions, failure to produce requested documents, and failure to comply with the trial court’s orders directing discovery compliance without an adequate excuse (see, Castrignano v Flynn, 255 AD2d 352; Brady v County of Nassau, 234 AD2d 408; Garcia v Kraniotakis, 232 AD2d 369).

The plaintiffs remaining contentions are either not properly before this Court or without merit. Ritter, J. P., S. Miller, Friedmann and Crane, JJ., concur.

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