Laverne v. Incorporated Village of Laurel Hollow
| Decision Date | 07 July 1966 |
| Citation | 18 N.Y.2d 635,219 N.E.2d 294,272 N.Y.S.2d 780 |
| Parties | , 219 N.E.2d 294 Erwine LAVERNE et al., Appellants, v. INCORPORATED VILLAGE OF LAUREL HOLLOW et al., Respondents. Erwine LAVERNE et al., Appellants, v. Edward J. MEEHAN, Individually and as Police Sergeant of the Incorporated Village of Laurel Hollow, Respondent. |
| Court | New York Court of Appeals Court of Appeals |
Henry Mark Holzer and Phyllis Tate Holzer, New York City, for appellants.
Stephen Van R. Ulman, Mineola, and Thomas C. Platt, Jr., New York City, for respondents.
Notwithstanding the lower court's error in determining that plaintiff's motion for a protective order pursuant to CPLR 3103 should have been addressed to the Appellate Division, rather than to the trial court, the court properly dismissed the complaint--in the sound exercise of its judicial discretion--because of plaintiff's willful failure to purge himself of his disobedience of prior court orders compelling disclosure on matters relevant to his causes of action and defenses thereto (CPLR 3126). And while it is true that plaintiff's 3103 motion automatically suspended all disclosure proceedings regarding the particular matter to be disclosed, the making of such a motion did not in any way immunize Laverne from the dismissal of his complaint. The Appellate Division affirmed this dismissal because Laverne's totality of conduct evidenced a willful failure 'to purge himself of his prior disobedience', a factual determination supported by the evidence and beyond the scope of this court's review.
As to plaintiff's constitutional argument that by compelling disclosure the court is denying him the privilege against self incrimination, the issue was thoroughly discussed and resolved in Levine v. Bornstein, 13 Misc.2d 161, 174 N.Y.S.2d 574 (Sup.Ct., 1958), affd. 7 A.D.2d 995 183 N.Y.S.2d 868 (2d Dept.), affd. without opn. 6 N.Y.2d 892, 190 N.Y.S.2d 702, 160 N.E.2d 921 (1959). The privilege against self incrimination was intended to be used solely as a shield, and thus a plaintiff cannot use it as a sword to harass a defendant and to effectively thwart any attempt by defendant at a pretrial discovery proceeding to obtain information relevant to the cause of action alleged and possible defenses thereto. (See, also, Franklin v. Franklin, 365 Mo. 442, 283 S.W.2d 483; Hazlett v. Bullis, 12 A.D.2d 784, 209 N.Y.S.2d 601 (2d Dept., 1961).)
The order of the Appellate Division should be affirmed.
...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Bramble v. Kleindienst
...Mo. 442, 283 S.W.2d 483; Hazlett v. Bullis, 12 A.D. 2d 784, 209 N.Y.S.2d 601 2 Dept 1961);" Laverne v. Incorp. Village of Laurel Hollow, 18 N.Y.2d 635, 272 N.Y.S.2d 780, 219 N.E.2d 294 (1966). The District Court for the Western District of Wisconsin had the same issue before it in a civil a......
-
Black Panther Party v. Smith
...the information or abandon her claim. 162 N.W.2d at 202. The New York Court of Appeals in Laverne v. Incorp. Village of Laurel Hollow, 18 N.Y.2d 635, 272 N.Y.S.2d 780, 219 N.E.2d 294 (1966), also relied upon this The privilege against self-incrimination was intended to be used solely as a s......
-
Igoe v. Apple, 1055–16
...and possible defenses thereto’ " ( Nasca , 10 A.D.3d at 416, 781 N.Y.S.2d 137, quoting Laverne v. Incorporated Vil. of Laurel Hollow , 18 N.Y.2d 635, 638, 272 N.Y.S.2d 780, 219 N.E.2d 294 [1966] ). Thus, "where the plaintiff invoke[s] his [or her] Fifth Amendment privilege against self-incr......
-
Behrens v. Blunk
...Minn. 507, 162 N.W.2d 194 (1968); Franklin v. Franklin, 365 Mo. 442, 283 S.W.2d 483 (1955); Laverne v. Incorporated Vil. of Laurel Hollow, 18 N.Y.2d 635, 219 N.E.2d 294, 272 N.Y.S.2d 780 (1966). 11 See Lyons v. Johnson, 415 F.2d 540 (9th Cir.1969). 12 See Campbell v. Gerrans, 592 F.2d 1054 ......
-
Table of cases
...19:150 Laurence v. Corwin, 75 A.D.2d 840, 427 N.Y.S.2d 865 (2d Dept. 1980), § 17:90 Laverne v. Incorporated Vil. of Laurel Hollow, 18 N.Y.2d 635, 272 N.Y.S.2d 780 (2d Dept. 1966), § 7:60 Lavin v. Melloul, 7 Misc.3d 1027, 801 N.Y.S.2d 235 (Sup. Ct. Kings Co. 2005), §§ 18:20, 18:30 Lawton v P......
-
Table of cases
...19:150 Laurence v. Corwin, 75 A.D.2d 840, 427 N.Y.S.2d 865 (2d Dept. 1980), § 17:90 Laverne v. Incorporated Vil. of Laurel Hollow, 18 N.Y.2d 635, 272 N.Y.S.2d 780 (2d Dept. 1966), § 7:60 Lavin v. Melloul, 7 Misc.3d 1027, 801 N.Y.S.2d 235 (Sup. Ct. Kings Co. 2005), §§ 18:20, 18:30 Leal v. Si......
-
Privileges
...at a pretrial proceeding; the privilege is a shield but may not be used as a sword. Laverne v. Incorporated Vil. of Laurel Hollow, 18 N.Y.2d 635, 272 N.Y.S.2d 780 (2d Dept. 1966); Nasca v. Town of Brookhaven, 10 A.D.3d 415, 781 N.Y.S.2d 137 (2d Dept. 2005). Similarly, invocation of the Fift......
-
Privileges
...at a pretrial proceeding; the privilege is a shield but may not be used as a sword. Laverne v. Incorporated Vil. of Laurel Hollow, 18 N.Y.2d 635, 272 N.Y.S.2d 780 (2d Dept. 1966); Nasca v. Town of Brookhaven, 10 A.D.3d 415, 781 N.Y.S.2d 137 (2d Dept. 2005). Similarly, invocation of the Fift......