Case Name: Ping Lee, Appellant, v. Peter Lin et al., Respondents
Court: New York Supreme Court, Appellate Term
Jurisdiction: New York
Decision Date: 2000-06-05
Citations: 184 Misc. 2d 982
Docket Number: 
Parties: Ping Lee, Appellant, v Peter Lin et al., Respondents.
Judges: 
Reporter: New York Miscellaneous Reports
Volume: 184
Pages: 982–983

Head Matter:
[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:
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.