Case ID: misc2d_184/html/0982-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

[712 NYS2d 740]
    Ping Lee, Appellant, v Peter Lin et al., Respondents.
    Supreme Court, Appellate Term, Second Department,
    June 5, 2000
    APPEARANCES OF COUNSEL
    
      Ping Lee, New York City, appellant pro se. Daniel L. Feldman, Flushing, for respondents.
   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 forth 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.