Zletz v. Wetanson
| Decision Date | 11 February 1986 |
| Citation | 67 N.Y.2d 711,490 N.E.2d 852,499 N.Y.S.2d 933 |
| Parties | , 490 N.E.2d 852 Richard ZLETZ, Appellant, v. Herbert WETANSON et al., Respondents. |
| Court | New York Court of Appeals Court of Appeals |
The order of the Appellate Division, 111 A.D.2d 1081, 1083, 491 N.Y.S.2d 885, should be modified, without 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 A.D.2d 820, 429 N.Y.S.2d 27; Commissioners of State Ins. Fund v. News World Communications, 74 A.D.2d 765, 425 N.Y.S.2d 595). 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 N.Y.2d 568, 571-572, 406 N.Y.S.2d 743, 378 N.E.2d 106; Laverne v. Incorporated Vil. of Laurel Hollow, 18 N.Y.2d 635, 637-638, 272 N.Y.S.2d 780, 219 N.E.2d 294; Battaglia v. Hofmeister, 100 A.D.2d 833, 834, 473 N.Y.S.2d 838; see, CPLR 3103[a]; Allen v. Crowell-Collier Pub. Co., 21 N.Y.2d 403, 406-407, 288 N.Y.S.2d 449, 235...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
CDR Créances S.A. v. Cohen
...to support the dismissal of appellants' answer under criteria normally employed in this state ( see e.g. Zletz v. Wetanson, 67 N.Y.2d 711, 713, 499 N.Y.S.2d 933, 490 N.E.2d 852 [1986] [“conduct designed to yield one-sided disclosure”]; Kirkland v. New York City Hous. Auth., 236 A.D.2d 170, ......
-
Mercado v. Schwartz
...; Tewari v. Tsoutsouras, supra , at 11, 550 N.Y.S.2d 572, 550 N.Y.S.2d 572, 549 N.E.2d 1143 ; see also , Zletz v. Wetanson , 67 N.Y.2d 711, 713, 499 N.Y.S.2d 933, 490 N.E.2d 852 ; Reynolds Securities v. Underwriters Bank & Trust Co. , 44 N.Y.2d 568, 406 N.Y.S.2d 743, 378 N.E.2d 106 ). Kolb ......
-
Carven Associates v. American Home Assur. Corp.
...although a severe one, cannot be said to have been an improvident exercise of the court's broad discretion (see, Zletz v Wetanson, 67 NY2d 711 [499 N.Y.S.2d 933, 490 N.E.2d 852]; Homburger v Levitin, 130 AD2d 715 [515 N.Y.S.2d 825], as the record reveals that the plaintiffs engaged in condu......
-
M.F. v. Albany Med. Ctr.
...Casker, Kennedy & Drake, Architects & Landscape Architects, P.C. [Habiterra Assoc.], 5 N.Y.3d 514, 521 [2005]; see Zletz v Wetanson, 67 N.Y.2d 711, 713 [1986]). The unexcused and repeated noncompliance with discovery obligations and court orders by trial counsel disrespects the parties, who......