Laverne v. Inc. Vill. of Laurel Hollow, 219 N.E.2d 294 (NY 1966). · Go Syfert
Search
Laverne v. Inc. Vill. of Laurel Hollow, 219 N.E.2d 294 (NY 1966). Cases Citing This Book View Copy Cite
58 citation events (15 in the last 25 years) across 16 distinct courts.
Strongest positive: Williams v. City of Syracuse (nynd, 2023-01-27) · Strongest negative: McCormick v. County of Suffolk (nyappdiv, 1976-06-28)
Treatment trajectory · 1966 → 2026 · click a year to view as-of
1966 1996 2026
Top citers, strongest first. 5 distinct citers. How cited ↗
discussed Cited "but see" McCormick v. County of Suffolk
N.Y. App. Div. · 1976 · signal: but cf. · confidence high
Otherwise, the shield of the Fourth Amendment would become a sword which the plaintiff could use to stifle evidence relevant to his claim (see Herndon v City of Ithaca, 43 AD2d 634, 635-636 , app dsmd 35 NY2d 956 ; contra Provenzo v Sam, 27 AD2d 442, 445 , revd on other grounds 23 NY2d 256 ; but cf. Laverne v Incorporated Vil. of Laurel Hollow, 18 NY2d 635 ).
cited Cited as authority (rule) Williams v. City of Syracuse
N.D.N.Y. · 2023 · confidence medium
Jan. 27, 2009); Laverne v. Inc. Vill. of Laurel Hollow, 18 N.Y.2d 635, 638 (N.Y. 1966); Di Pompo v. City of Beacon Police Dep't, 153 A.D.3d 597, 598 (N.Y.
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Adamski v. Schuyler Hospital, Inc. (2×) also: Cited "see"
N.Y. App. Div. · 2007 · confidence medium
Inasmuch as the record herein confirms the ongoing evasiveness exhibited by plaintiff regarding his disclosure obligations, we find no basis to conclude that Supreme Court erred in striking the complaint as a result of defendant’s overall pattern of noncompliance (see Laveme v Incorporated Vil. of Laurel Hollow, supra at 638; Du Valle v Swan Lake Resort Hotel, LLC, supra at 618; Cavanaugh v Russell Sage Coll., supra at 661).
cited Cited as authority (rule) Travis v. Finley
Va. Ct. App. · 2001 · confidence medium
Village of Laurel Hollow, 18 N.Y.2d 635 , 638, 272 N.Y.S.2d 780, 782 , 219 N.E.2d 294, 295 (1966), appeal dismissed, 386 U.S. 682 , 87 S.Ct. 1324 , 18 L.Ed.2d 403 (1967).
cited Cited as authority (rule) Davis v. Davis
Va. · 1987 · confidence medium
Village of Laurel Hollow, 18 N.Y.2d 635 , 638, 272 N.Y.S.2d 780, 782 , 219 N.E.2d 294, 295 (1966), appeal dismissed, 386 U.S. 682 (1967).
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
Erwine Laverne et al., Appellants,
v.
Incorporated Village of Laurel Hollow et al., Respondents. Erwine Laverne et al., Appellants, v. Edward J. Meehan, Individually and as Police Sergeant of the Incorporated Village of Laurel Hollow, Respondent.
New York Court of Appeals.
Jul 7, 1966.
219 N.E.2d 294
Desmond and Judges Fuld, Van Voorhis, Burke, Scileppi, Bergan and Keating Concur.
Cited by 13 opinions  |  Published

Henry Mark Holzer and Phyllis Tate Holzer for appellants.

Stephen Van R. Ulman and Thomas C. Platt, Jr., for respondents.

Chief Judge DESMOND and Judges FULD, VAN VOORHIS, BURKE, SCILEPPI, BERGAN and KEATING concur.

[*637] MEMORANDUM.

Notwithstanding the lower court's error in determining that plaintiff's motion for a protective order pursuant to CPLR 3103 should have been addressed to the Appellate Division, rather than to the trial court, the court properly dismissed the complaint — in the sound exercise of its judicial discretion — because of plaintiff's willful failure to purge himself of his disobedience of prior court orders compelling disclosure on matters relevant to his causes of action and defenses thereto (CPLR 3126). And while it is true that plaintiff's 3103 motion automatically suspended all disclosure proceedings regarding the[*638] particular matter to be disclosed, the making of such a motion did not in any way immunize Laverne from the dismissal of his complaint. The Appellate Division affirmed this dismissal because Laverne's totality of conduct evidenced a willful failure "to purge himself of his prior disobedience", a factual determination supported by the evidence and beyond the scope of this court's review.

As to plaintiff's constitutional argument that by compelling disclosure the court is denying him the privilege against self incrimination, the issue was thoroughly discussed and resolved in Levine v. Bornstein (13 Misc 2d 161 [Sup. Ct., 1958], affd. 7 A D 2d 995 [2d Dept.], affd. without opn. 6 N Y 2d 892 [1959]). The privilege against self incrimination was intended to be used solely as a shield, and thus a plaintiff cannot use it as a sword to harass a defendant and to effectively thwart any attempt by defendant at a pretrial discovery proceeding to obtain information relevant to the cause of action alleged and possible defenses thereto. (See, also, Franklin v. Franklin, 365 Mo. 442; Hazlett v. Bullis, 12 A D 2d 784 [2d Dept., 1961].)

The order of the Appellate Division should be affirmed.

Order affirmed.