Federal Chandros, Inc. v. Silverite Construction Co.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Federal Chandros, Inc. v. Silverite Construction Co.

167 A.D.2d 315, 562 N.Y.S.2d 64, 1990 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 14095

CourtAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York

DecidedNovember 29, 1990

StatusPublished

Cited by6 cases

This text of 167 A.D.2d 315 (Federal Chandros, Inc. v. Silverite Construction Co.) 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

Federal Chandros, Inc. v. Silverite Construction Co., 167 A.D.2d 315, 562 N.Y.S.2d 64, 1990 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 14095 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1990).

Pincite

Opinion

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Martin Stecher, J.), entered on July 17, 1989, which granted a motion by defendant Silverite Construction Company to dismiss the complaint, granted a motion by defendant Fidelity and Deposit Company of Maryland for reargument of a prior cross motion to dismiss the complaint and, on reargument, granted the motion, denied plaintiffs’ cross motion for reargument of a prior motion by Silverite, and ordered the clerk to enter judgment dismissing the complaint, unanimously affirmed, with costs.

Plaintiffs brought this action seeking the sum of $42,000 for performance of electrical work in connection with construction, renovations and improvements performed on the Long Island Railroad Hillside Support Facility, in which defendant Silverite was party to the contract, and in which defendant Fidelity issued a bond guaranteeing Silverite’s payment under the contract. The plaintiffs have offered, as a deposition witness, a principal of plaintiff Federal Chandros. This witness has refused to answer any substantive questions on the asser[316]*316tion of his privilege pursuant to the Fifth Amendment of the US Constitution, and the plaintiffs have not offered any other knowledgeable witness. After several attempts to accommodate the plaintiffs, the IAS court dismissed the plaintiffs’ complaint for failure to provide disclosure.

The complaint was properly dismissed. As the IAS court noted, a party may not use a Fifth Amendment privilege as a shield to resist discovery while simultaneously pressing claims against the party seeking discovery (Steinbrecher v Wapnick, 24 NY2d 354; Laverne v Incorporated Vil. of Laurel Hollow, 18 NY2d 635, appeal dismissed 386 US 682). This prohibition applies with equal force where the privilege is asserted by the principal of a corporate plaintiff (see, e.g., Dyno-Bite, Inc. v Travelers Cos., 80 AD2d 471, appeal dismissed 54 NY2d 1027). Concur—Murphy, P. J., Kupferman, Milonas, Ellerin and Rubin, JJ.

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

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Martin Stecher, J.), entered on July 17, 1989, which granted a motion by defendant Silverite Construction Company to dismiss the complaint, granted a motion by defendant Fidelity and Deposit Company of Maryland for reargument of a prior cross motion to dismiss the complaint and, on reargument, granted the motion, denied plaintiffs’ cross motion for reargument of a prior motion by Silverite, and ordered the clerk to enter judgment dismissing the complaint, unanimously affirmed, with costs.

Plaintiffs brought this action seeking the sum of $42,000 for performance of electrical work in connection with construction, renovations and improvements performed on the Long Island Railroad Hillside Support Facility, in which defendant Silverite was party to the contract, and in which defendant Fidelity issued a bond guaranteeing Silverite’s payment under the contract. The plaintiffs have offered, as a deposition witness, a principal of plaintiff Federal Chandros. This witness has refused to answer any substantive questions on the asser[316]*316tion of his privilege pursuant to the Fifth Amendment of the US Constitution, and the plaintiffs have not offered any other knowledgeable witness. After several attempts to accommodate the plaintiffs, the IAS court dismissed the plaintiffs’ complaint for failure to provide disclosure.

The complaint was properly dismissed. As the IAS court noted, a party may not use a Fifth Amendment privilege as a shield to resist discovery while simultaneously pressing claims against the party seeking discovery (Steinbrecher v Wapnick, 24 NY2d 354; Laverne v Incorporated Vil. of Laurel Hollow, 18 NY2d 635, appeal dismissed 386 US 682). This prohibition applies with equal force where the privilege is asserted by the principal of a corporate plaintiff (see, e.g., Dyno-Bite, Inc. v Travelers Cos., 80 AD2d 471, appeal dismissed 54 NY2d 1027). Concur—Murphy, P. J., Kupferman, Milonas, Ellerin and Rubin, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

167 A.D.2d 315, 562 N.Y.S.2d 64, 1990 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 14095, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/federal-chandros-inc-v-silverite-construction-co-nyappdiv-1990.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack