Bodine v. Ladjevardi

284 A.D.2d 351, 726 N.Y.S.2d 129, 2001 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 6253
CourtAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York
DecidedJune 11, 2001
StatusPublished
Cited by9 cases

This text of 284 A.D.2d 351 (Bodine v. Ladjevardi) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Bodine v. Ladjevardi, 284 A.D.2d 351, 726 N.Y.S.2d 129, 2001 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 6253 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2001).

Opinion

—In an action, inter alia, to recover damages for fraud, the plaintiff appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Westchester County (Cowhey, J.), entered March 7, 2000, which granted the separate motions of the defendant Shahriar Ahy and the defendants Hamid Ladjevardi, Baltic Fund 1, L.P., Baltic Fund 1, L. L. C., and Baltic Management, L. L. C., pursuant to CPLR 3126 to dismiss the amended verified complaint insofar as asserted against them based on the plaintiff’s failure to comply with court-ordered discovery.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.

[352]*352The trial court properly dismissed the amended verified complaint insofar as asserted against the respondents. It is within the discretion of the trial court to determine the nature and degree of the penalty to be imposed against a party who "refuses to obey an order for disclosure or wilfully fails to disclose information which the court finds ought to have been disclosed” (CPLR 3126; see, DeJulio v Wulf, 260 AD2d 425; Kubacka v Town of N. Hempstead, 240 AD2d 374; Soto v City of Long Beach, 197 AD2d 615). The plaintiffs willful and contumacious conduct can be inferred from his numerous adjournments of scheduled depositions, failure to produce requested documents, and failure to comply with the trial court’s orders directing discovery compliance without an adequate excuse (see, Castrignano v Flynn, 255 AD2d 352; Brady v County of Nassau, 234 AD2d 408; Garcia v Kraniotakis, 232 AD2d 369).

The plaintiffs remaining contentions are either not properly before this Court or without merit. Ritter, J. P., S. Miller, Friedmann and Crane, JJ., concur.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Related

Field v. Bao
140 A.D.3d 921 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2016)
Morgenstern v. Jeffsam Corp.
78 A.D.3d 913 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2010)
Umar v. Ohrnberger
72 A.D.3d 1066 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2010)
Workman v. Town of Southampton
69 A.D.3d 619 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2010)
Suazo-Alvarez v. Nordlaw, LLC
48 A.D.3d 670 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2008)
McArthur v. New York City Housing Authority
48 A.D.3d 431 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2008)
Kroll v. Parkway Plaza Joint Venture
10 A.D.3d 633 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2004)
Voss v. 87-10 51st Avenue Owners Corp.
292 A.D.2d 622 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2002)
Reid v. Schoenthal
288 A.D.2d 203 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2001)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
284 A.D.2d 351, 726 N.Y.S.2d 129, 2001 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 6253, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/bodine-v-ladjevardi-nyappdiv-2001.