New York Court of Appeals, 1986

Zletz v. Wetanson

New York Court of Appeals · Decided February 11, 1986

67 N.Y.2d 711; 490 N.E.2d 852; 499 N.Y.S.2d 933; 1986 N.Y. LEXIS 16639

Cases that cite this one

112 later published cases cite this decision. The 25 that cite it most often are listed here.

Beauregard v. Millwood-Beauregard (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 1994)
Hicks v. Unitrin Advantage Ins. Co. (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2026)
CDR Créances S.A.S. v. Cohen (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2012)
CDR Créances S.A.S. v. Cohen (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2012)
Thomas v. Benedictine Hospital (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2002)
Nowak v. Veira (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2001)
Andrea v. E.I. du Pont de Nemours & Co. (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2001)
Corsini v. U-Haul International, Inc. (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 1995)
Tewari v. Tsoutsouras (N.Y. 1989)
Van Wert v. Green-Pepper (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 1989)
Miller v. Duffy (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 1987)
Sawh v. Bridges (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 1986)
M.B. v. Roman Catholic Diocese of Brooklyn (New York Supreme Court, Kings County 2024)
D.B. v. Roman Catholic Diocese of Brooklyn (New York Supreme Court, Kings County 2024)
A.B. v. Roman Catholic Diocese of Brooklyn (New York Supreme Court, Kings County 2024)
M.F. v. Albany Med. Ctr. (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2023)
Ashfaq v. Ice Cream Depot Corp. (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2022)
HSBC Bank USA, N.A. v. Branker (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2019)
Aziz v. City of New York (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2015)
Roug Kang Wang v. Chien-Tsang Lin (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2012)
Quinones v. Long Island Jewish Medical Center (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2011)
Tower Insurance v. Red Rose Restaurant, Inc. (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2010)
Olmsted v. Pizza Hut of America, Inc. (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2009)
Northfield Insurance v. Model Towing & Recovery (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2009)
DeRiggi v. Brady (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2009)

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

OPINION OF THE COURT

Memorandum.

The order of the Appellate Division should be modified, *713without costs, by reinstating the complaint as against defendants Wetanson, Civin and Epstein and, as so modified, affirmed.

In March 1983, approximately two years after commencing this action for breach of oral partnership agreements and conspiracy, plaintiff began a flurry of discovery by securing the depositions of defendants Epstein and Vilca and serving upon defendants a set of interrogatories and a notice to produce documents. After some 14 months of defendants’ unsuccessful efforts to secure disclosure from plaintiff, and after a court order compelling plaintiff to answer defendant Vilca’s interrogatories, Special Term dismissed the complaint, pursuant to CPLR 3126, as against all four defendants. The Appellate Division affirmed, without opinion.

Dismissal of the complaint as against defendant Vilca for plaintiff’s failure to answer the interrogatories was well within Special Term’s discretion. The record supports Special Term’s determination that plaintiff, through delays and other strategies, engaged in a course of conduct designed to yield one-sided disclosure in his favor, culminating in his disregard of an order compelling him to answer defendant Vilca’s interrogatories, which were found to be relevant and appropriate (cf. Fellner v Texas Mexican Ry. Co., 76 AD2d 820; Commissioners of State Ins. Fund v News World Communications, 74 AD2d 765). Where a party in these circumstances disobeys a court order and by his conduct frustrates the disclosure scheme provided by the CPLR, dismissal of the complaint is within the broad discretion of the trial court (Reynolds Sec. v Underwriters Bank & Trust Co., 44 NY2d 568, 571-572; Laverne v Incorporated Vil. of Laurel Hollow, 18 NY2d 635, 637-638; Battaglia v Hofmeister, 100 AD2d 833, 834; see, CPLR 3103 [a]; Allen v Crowell-Collier Pub. Co., 21 NY2d 403, 406-407).

Dismissal of the complaint as against the remaining three defendants, however, was an abuse of discretion. Although similarly affected by plaintiff’s actions, these defendants never sought an order compelling disclosure and Special Term made no ruling that material sought by these defendants “ought to have been disclosed” (CPLR 3126). In fact, Special Term had viewed disclosure with respect to these three defendants as *714stayed by virtue of CPLR 3214 (b). The complaint should therefore be reinstated as to these defendants.

Chief Judge Wachtler and Judges Meyer, Simons, Kaye, Alexander, Titone and Hancock, Jr., concur.

On review of submissions pursuant to section 500.4 of the Rules of the Court of Appeals (22 NYCRR 500.4), order modified, without costs, in accordance with the memorandum herein and, as so modified, affirmed.

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