Miceli v. Miceli

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Miceli v. Miceli

233 A.D.2d 372, 650 N.Y.S.2d 241, 1996 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 11593

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

DecidedNovember 12, 1996

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 233 A.D.2d 372 (Miceli v. Miceli) 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

Miceli v. Miceli, 233 A.D.2d 372, 650 N.Y.S.2d 241, 1996 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 11593 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1996).

Pincite

Opinion

In an action for equitable distribution of marital property following the entry of a judgment of divorce in the State of Florida, the defendant former wife appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Posner, J.), dated June 26, 1995, which granted the plaintiff former husband’s motion to restore the action to the trial calendar but precluded the plaintiff from offering evidence as to any issues for which he failed to provide information in response to the defendant’s discovery requests.

[373]*373Ordered that the order is reversed, on the law, with costs, and the motion is denied.

The court improvidently exercised its discretion in restoring the action to the trial calendar inasmuch as the plaintiff failed to comply with his discovery obligations. The sanction of preclusion imposed by the court is not a satisfactory remedy in this case. Unlike a negligence action where a preclusion order may foreclose presentation of a prima facie case or defense, the preclusion of proof in an equitable distribution action could permit a party to secrete the very property the other party is seeking to discover. If the plaintiff persists in his failure to comply with discovery requests, a more appropriate sanction in this case would be to deem true the defendant’s allegations regarding the property about which discovery has been withheld. Rosenblatt, J. P., Thompson, Santucci and Altman, JJ., concur.

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

In an action for equitable distribution of marital property following the entry of a judgment of divorce in the State of Florida, the defendant former wife appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Posner, J.), dated June 26, 1995, which granted the plaintiff former husband’s motion to restore the action to the trial calendar but precluded the plaintiff from offering evidence as to any issues for which he failed to provide information in response to the defendant’s discovery requests.

[373]*373Ordered that the order is reversed, on the law, with costs, and the motion is denied.

The court improvidently exercised its discretion in restoring the action to the trial calendar inasmuch as the plaintiff failed to comply with his discovery obligations. The sanction of preclusion imposed by the court is not a satisfactory remedy in this case. Unlike a negligence action where a preclusion order may foreclose presentation of a prima facie case or defense, the preclusion of proof in an equitable distribution action could permit a party to secrete the very property the other party is seeking to discover. If the plaintiff persists in his failure to comply with discovery requests, a more appropriate sanction in this case would be to deem true the defendant’s allegations regarding the property about which discovery has been withheld. Rosenblatt, J. P., Thompson, Santucci and Altman, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

233 A.D.2d 372, 650 N.Y.S.2d 241, 1996 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 11593, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/miceli-v-miceli-nyappdiv-1996.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack