Appellate Terms of the Supreme Court of New York, 2000

Ping Lee v. Lin

Ping Lee v. Lin
Appellate Terms of the Supreme Court of New York · Decided June 5, 2000
184 Misc. 2d 982; 712 N.Y.S.2d 740; 2000 N.Y. Misc. LEXIS 318

Counsel

APPEARANCES OF COUNSEL, Ping Lee, New York City, appellant pro se. Daniel L. Feldman, Flushing, for respondents.

Ping Lee v. Lin

Opinion of the Court

OPINION OF THE COURT

Memorandum.

Order unanimously affirmed with $10 costs.

The court’s determination, denying plaintiffs motion to punish defendants for contempt, constituted a proper exercise of its discretion (see, 6 Weinstein-Korn-Miller, NY Civ Prac U 3126.06). Contempt is not a sanction listed in CPLR 3126 for a party’s failure to comply with disclosure. While said section does allow the court to impose, in addition to the sanctions set *983forth therein, any sanctions “as are just,” the commentary following said section indicates that contempt is only in rare instances imposed against a party (see, Siegel, Practice Commentaries, McKinney’s Cons Laws of NY, Book 7B, CPLR C3126:4, at 754-756; see also, 6 Weinstein-Korn-Miller, NY Civ Prac fí 3126.06).

Kassoff, P. J., Aronin and Chetta, JJ., concur.

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