On June 11, 2026, the First Department issued a decision in Peng v. Board of Mgrs. of Acmos on Chrystie LLC, 2026 NY Slip Op. 03740, holding that a court properly denied a motion for discontinuance, explaining:
Ordinarily, a court should not compel a party to litigate and should grant a discontinuance absent special circumstances. However, the record and procedural history of this case permitted the motion court to scrutinize plaintiff’s motive in seeking to discontinue the action. The record showed that plaintiff made the motion to discontinue only after defendants had produced substantial discovery, plaintiff had failed to comply with the court’s July 24, 2025 conference order, and the court had denied his applications to extend the discovery deadline. In its decision denying discontinuance without prejudice the court noted that the only basis plaintiff had provided for seeking a discontinuance without prejudice was that he was unable to pay further attorney fees, even though he hired his current counsel just weeks prior to filing this motion. The court further noted that plaintiff appeared to be attempting to avoid the adverse consequences resulting from the court’s discovery orders and that discontinuance would prejudice defendants. Under these circumstances, the court providently exercised its discretion in denying plaintiff’s motion.
(Internal citations omitted).