On the CPLR front – 3126(3) motion granted when party deponent lies during deposition

Discovery Sanctions for Deposition Perjury Under CPLR 3126

New York’s discovery laws impose serious obligations on parties to provide truthful testimony during examinations before trial. CPLR 3126 authorizes courts to impose severe sanctions when parties fail to comply with discovery demands or provide false information during the discovery process. While the statute is most commonly invoked for willful and contumacious failures to produce documents or appear for depositions, it also provides remedies when parties commit perjury during depositions.

The drastic remedy of striking pleadings represents one of the most powerful sanctions available under CPLR 3126(3), effectively terminating a party’s case without reaching the merits. Courts traditionally reserve this ultimate sanction for cases involving willful and contumacious conduct, requiring clear evidence that the discovery violation was intentional and unjustified. However, when a party deliberately provides false testimony about material facts during a deposition, courts recognize that such perjury undermines the entire discovery process and justifies the harshest available sanctions.

Prior medical history represents one of the most critical areas of inquiry in personal injury litigation. When plaintiffs conceal previous accidents, injuries, or medical conditions during depositions, they not only commit perjury but also potentially deprive defendants of essential information needed to evaluate causation and damages. The discovery of such lies often requires extensive additional investigation, including subpoenas to medical providers, insurance companies, and court records, imposing significant burdens on both the judicial system and opposing parties.

Casimir v Ann Bendick Realty, 2011 NY Slip Op 50602(U)(App. Term 2d Dept. 2011)

Case Background

In Casimir v Ann Bendick Realty, the defendant Kone, Inc. moved for sanctions under CPLR 3126(3) seeking to strike the plaintiff’s complaint based on false testimony provided during her examination before trial. The defendant presented documentary evidence demonstrating that the plaintiff had falsely testified regarding her medical history and prior personal injury lawsuits when questioned during her deposition.

The Civil Court initially denied the defendant’s motion, apparently declining to impose the drastic sanction of dismissal despite the evidence of false testimony. The defendant appealed this denial to the Appellate Term, Second Department, arguing that the documentary proof of perjury warranted the ultimate sanction of striking the plaintiff’s pleadings. The appeal presented the question of whether proven false testimony during discovery justifies case dismissal even without a showing that the false statements constituted willful and contumacious conduct in the traditional discovery violation sense.

Jason’s Analysis

How many times has the party testified that he has never been involved in a prior accident, only to be later discovered that this person has had a bullseye on his back for 10 years that says hit me? There is nothing more frustrating than an injured person who lies about his prior medical history at an EBT, and the footwork that is necessary to compel a further deposition based on the lies.

The Appellate Term, in a far reaching decision REVERSED the Civil Court’s order denying a CPLR 3126(3) motion and in substance said the following: “if you perjure yourself, your complaint is dismissed.” It is nice to see this type of a decision. Here is the holding:

“While the drastic remedy of striking a pleading for failure to comply with discovery demands is inappropriate absent a clear showing that the failure was willful and contumacious a motion to strike a party’s pleadings pursuant to CPLR 3126 may be granted because of a party’s submission of false information during the course of discovery. In our opinion, this is one such case, since the documentary evidence submitted by defendant Kone, Inc. clearly demonstrates that plaintiff falsely testified during her deposition regarding her medical history and prior personal injury lawsuits.”

All I can say is think twice before telling a fib under oath.

Legal Significance

The Casimir decision represents an important expansion of CPLR 3126 jurisprudence beyond traditional discovery non-compliance scenarios. By holding that false testimony alone can justify striking a complaint, even without the traditional “willful and contumacious” finding typically required for discovery sanctions, the Appellate Term signaled that courts will not tolerate perjury during the discovery process. This ruling establishes that documentary proof of material false statements during depositions provides sufficient grounds for the ultimate sanction of case dismissal.

The decision also underscores the importance of thorough background investigations in personal injury cases. Defense counsel who uncover documentary evidence contradicting deposition testimony through diligent investigation of prior claims, medical records, and litigation history can potentially obtain case-ending sanctions rather than merely impeachment evidence for trial. This creates strong incentives for truthfulness during depositions and provides defendants with powerful remedies when confronted with dishonest plaintiffs.

Practical Implications

Defense attorneys should recognize that proving deposition perjury requires more than mere inconsistencies or impeachment evidence. The Casimir court relied on “documentary evidence” that “clearly demonstrates” the plaintiff’s false testimony. Practitioners seeking CPLR 3126 sanctions based on deposition lies should obtain objective proof such as prior litigation files, medical records, insurance claim files, or other contemporaneous documents that definitively establish the falsity of the deposition testimony.

For plaintiffs’ attorneys, this decision emphasizes the critical importance of thoroughly preparing clients for depositions and ensuring complete candor about prior medical history and litigation. Even if previous conditions seem unrelated to current injuries, concealing them during depositions risks catastrophic sanctions that terminate the entire case. The potential benefit of hiding prior injuries pales in comparison to the risk of case dismissal under CPLR 3126.

Related Articles

• CPLR 3212(f) relief denied in three key discovery circumstances
• EBT procedural requirements in no-fault cases
• CPLR 3126 sanctions limitations for assignee when assignor fails EBT
• EBT conduct and procedural requirements
• New York No-Fault Insurance Law

Legal Update (February 2026): Since this 2011 post, CPLR 3126 jurisprudence regarding sanctions for discovery misconduct may have evolved through subsequent appellate decisions and amendments to discovery practice rules. Practitioners should verify current case law standards for striking pleadings based on false deposition testimony and confirm any procedural updates to motion practice under CPLR 3126.