DOUEK v. DOUEK

2015-03239, Index No. 53509/12.

2017 NY Slip Op 01843

JOSEPH DOUEK, Respondent, v. VIVIAN DOUEK, Appellant.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department.


Attorney(s) appearing for the Case

Howard Benjamin , New York, NY, for appellant.

Fersch Petitti LLC, New York, NY ( Danielle R. Petitti of counsel), for respondent.

Before: Cheryl E. Chambers, J.P., Sheri S. Roman, Hector D. LaSalle, Betsy Barros, JJ.


Appeal by the defendant from an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Eric I. Prus, J.), dated November 21, 2014. The order granted that branch of the plaintiff's motion which was pursuant to CPLR 3126 to preclude the defendant from offering financial evidence at trial.

DECISION & ORDER

ORDERED that the order is affirmed, with costs.

In this action for a divorce and ancillary relief, the Supreme Court granted that branch of the plaintiff's motion which was pursuant to CPLR 3126 to preclude the defendant from offering financial evidence at trial. The defendant appeals.

Pursuant to CPLR 3126, if any party "refuses to obey an order for disclosure or wilfully fails to disclose information which the court finds ought to have been disclosed . . ., the court may make such orders with regard to the failure or refusal as are just." The nature and the degree of the penalty to be imposed pursuant to CPLR 3126 lies within the sound discretion of the Supreme Court (see Raville v Elnomany, 76 A.D.3d 520, 521; Casey v Casey, 39 A.D.3d 579, 580; Green v Green, 32 A.D.3d 898, 899; Serdaroglu v Serdaroglu, 209 A.D.2d 606, 607).

Contrary to the defendant's contention, the Supreme Court did not improvidently exercise its discretion in granting that branch of the plaintiff's motion which was pursuant to CPLR 3126 to preclude the defendant from offering financial evidence at trial due to her willful violation of discovery orders and her failure to comply with the plaintiff's discovery requests (see CPLR 3126; Raville v Elnomany, 76 A.D.3d 520; Casey v Casey, 39 A.D.3d 579; Green v Green, 32 A.D.3d 898; Serdaroglu v Serdaroglu, 209 A.D.2d 606).

CHAMBERS, J.P., ROMAN, LASALLE and BARROS, JJ., concur.


Comment

1000 Characters Remaining

Leagle.com reserves the right to edit or remove comments but is under no obligation to do so, or to explain individual moderation decisions.

User Comments

Listed below are the cases that are cited in this Featured Case. Click the citation to see the full text of the cited case. Citations are also linked in the body of the Featured Case.

Cited Cases

  • No Cases Found

Listed below are those cases in which this Featured Case is cited. Click on the case name to see the full text of the citing case.

Citing Cases