theCPLRblog

(Restored): 202.21 and 202.27. A peculiar set of facts.

22 NYCRR 202.21 Note of issue and certificate of readiness

22 NYCRR 202.27 Defaults

Soo Ji Kim v Seney, 2012 NY Slip Op 00774 (2nd Dept., 2012)

On January 25, 2010, the Supreme Court struck the action from the trial calendar after the plaintiff appeared for the calendar call but was not ready for trial. There was no order vacating the note of issue pursuant to 22 NYCRR 202.21(e). Accordingly, contrary to the defendant's contention, in moving to restore the action to the trial calendar, the plaintiff was not required to submit a certificate of readiness or show that the case was ready for trial (see 22 NYCRR 202.21[f]; Ross v Brookdale Univ. Hosp. & Med. Ctr., 54 AD3d 370, 371). Furthermore, since the plaintiff moved to restore the action to the trial calendar within one year of the date it was stricken, restoration was automatic (see CPLR 3404; Ross v Brookdale Univ. Hosp. & Med. Ctr., 54 AD3d at 371; Kohn v Citigroup, Inc., 29 AD3d 530, 532; Basetti v Nour, 287 AD2d 126, 133-134).

Moreover, after the matter was stricken from the trial calendar, there was no order [*2]dismissing the action pursuant to 22 NYCRR 202.27 (see Mitskevitch v City of New York, 78 AD3d 1137, 1138; Casavecchia v Mizrahi, 62 AD3d 741, 742; Burdick v Marcus, 17 AD3d 388). Accordingly, the plaintiff's motion to reinstate the note of issue should have been granted, and, upon renewal and reargument, the plaintiff's motion to restore the action to the trial calendar should have been granted.

Disclosure, lots of it

CPLR § 3126 Penalties for refusal to comply with order or to disclose

CPLR § 4504. Physician, dentist, podiatrist, chiropractor and nurse

CPLR R. 3120 Discovery and production of documents and things for inspection, testing, copying or photographing

CPLR § 3101 Scope of disclosure

CPLR R. 3124 Failure to disclose; motion to compel disclosure

22 NYCRR 202.21 Note of issue and certificate of readiness

Congel v Malfitano, 2011 NY Slip Op 04406 (App. Div., 2nd 2011)

Contrary to the defendant's contentions, the Supreme Court providently exercised its discretion in denying that branch of his cross motion which was for leave to amend his answer to assert counterclaims pursuant to Partnership Law §§ 73 and 74. Although leave to amend should be freely given in the absence of prejudice or surprise to the opposing party (see CPLR 3025[b]), the motion should be denied where the proposed amendment is palpably insufficient or patently devoid of merit (see Brooks v Robinson, 56 AD3d 406, 407; Scofield v DeGroodt, 54 AD3d 1017, 1018; Lucido v Mancuso, 49 AD3d 220, 227). Here, the defendant's proposed amended counterclaims were patently devoid of merit.

CPLR 3101(a) provides for, inter alia, "full disclosure of all matter material and necessary in the prosecution or defense of an action." Although the phrase "material and necessary" must be "interpreted liberally" in favor of disclosure so long as the information sought meets the test of "usefulness and reason" (Allen v Crowell-Collier Publ. Co., 21 NY2d 403, 406; see Scalone v Phelps Mem. Hosp. Ctr., 184 AD2d 65, 69-70), a party does not have the right to uncontrolled and unfettered disclosure (see Merkos L'Inyonei Chinuch, Inc. v Sharf, 59 AD3d 408, 410; Gilman & Ciocia, Inc. v Walsh, 45 AD3d 531, 531). Further, the Supreme Court has broad discretion over the supervision of disclosure, and its determination will not be disturbed absent an improvident exercise of discretion (see Spodek v Neiss, 70 AD3d 810, 810; Reilly Green Mtn. Platform Tennis v Cortese, 59 AD3d 694, 695; Cabellero v City of New York, 48 AD3d 727, 728).

On the defendant's prior appeal, this Court remitted the matter to the Supreme Court, Dutchess County, for, inter alia, further proceedings on the issue of damages caused to the plaintiffs by the defendant's wrongful dissolution of the Poughkeepsie Galleria Company Partnership, as well as a determination of the value of the defendant's interest in that partnership at the time of the wrongful dissolution (see Congel v Malfitano, 61 AD3d 810; Partnership Law § 69[2][c][II]). Given that the remaining issues to be resolved in this matter are narrow (see Partnership Law § 69[2][c][II]), the Supreme Court did not improvidently exercise its discretion in limiting the scope of discovery and providing for an expedited discovery schedule.

Thompson v Dallas BBQ, 2011 NY Slip Op 04451 (App. Div., 2nd 2011)

Pursuant to CPLR 3126, "[a] court may strike an answer as a sanction if a defendant refuses to obey an order for disclosure or willfully fails to disclose information which the court finds ought to have been disclosed'" (Mazza v Seneca, 72 AD3d 754, 754, quoting CPLR 3126). The nature and degree of the penalty to be imposed pursuant to CPLR 3126 lies within the sound discretion of the trial court (see CPLR 3126[3]; Kihl v Pfeffer, 94 NY2d 118, 122-123; Bernal v Singh, 72 AD3d 716). The drastic remedy of striking a pleading is not appropriate absent a clear showing that the failure to comply with discovery demands is willful and contumacious (see CPLR 3126[3]; Kyung Soo Kim v Goldmine Realty, Inc., 73 AD3d 709; Moray v City of Yonkers, 72 AD3d 766).

Here, there was no such clear showing that the defendants' conduct was willful and contumacious (see Dank v Sears Holding Mgt. Corp., 69 AD3d 557). Accordingly, the Supreme Court providently exercised its discretion in denying the plaintiff's motion to strike the defendants' answer.

Gille v Long Beach City School Dist., 2011 NY Slip Op 04202 (App. Div., 2nd 2011)

While it is unclear whether the school district negligently lost or intentionally destroyed key evidence (see Denoyelles v Gallagher, 40 AD3d 1027; Baglio v St. John's Queens Hosp., 303 AD2d 341, 342-343), it is uncontested that the school district is unable to locate the window shade, the very instrumentality giving rise to the infant plaintiff's injuries. However, because the determination of spoliation sanctions is within the broad discretion of the trial court (see Iamiceli v General Motors Corp., 51 AD3d 635; Barnes v Paulin, 52 AD3d 754; Dennis v City of New York, 18 AD3d 599), the matter must be remitted to the Supreme Court, Nassau County, for its determination of the cross motion on the merits (see American Fed. of School Adm'rs, AFL-CIO v Council of Adm'rs & Supervisors, 266 AD2d 417, 418; Polera Bldg. Corp. v New York School Constr. Auth., 262 AD2d 295).

Lopez v Retail Prop. Trust, 2011 NY Slip Op 04008 (App. Div., 2nd 2011)

The Supreme Court, in its discretion, may grant permission to conduct additional discovery after the filing of a note of issue and certificate of readiness where the moving party demonstrates that "unusual or unanticipated circumstances" developed subsequent to the filing requiring additional pretrial proceedings to prevent substantial prejudice (22 NYCRR 202.21[d]; see Wigand v Modlin, 82 AD3d 1213; Owen v Lester, 79 AD3d 992; Audiovox Corp. v Benyamini, 265 AD2d 135, 140). The compliance conference order dated February 17, 2010, warning the plaintiff that failure to file a note of issue within 90 days would result in dismissal of the action, did not mandate that all discovery be complete prior to the filing of the note of issue. Even though the defendant Kone, Inc. (hereinafter the defendant), was impeding discovery, the plaintiff filed a conditional note of issue as directed by the compliance conference order. It was not until after the filing of the conditional note of issue that the defendant moved for a protective order with respect to the plaintiff's discovery requests, on the ground that they were untimely. Under these circumstances, the plaintiff's cross motion to compel the defendant to comply with outstanding discovery should have been granted (see Karakostas v Avis Rent A Car Sys., 306 AD2d 381, 382; Schmitt v Carl Meyer's Hof, Inc., 86 AD2d 985).

Olkovetsy v Friedwald Ctr. for Rehabilitation & Nursing, LLC, 2011 NY Slip Op 04015 (App. Div. 2nd 2011)

Pursuant to CPLR 4504(a), information obtained by, among others, professional nursing personnel in attending to a patient in a professional capacity and "which [is] necessary to enable him [or her] to act in that capacity" is privileged. As a general rule, disclosure of the name and address of a nonparty patient who may have been a witness to an alleged act of negligence or malpractice does not violate the patient's privilege of confidentiality of treatment (see Rabinowitz v St. John's Episcopal Hosp., 24 AD3d 530; Hirsch v Catholic Med. Ctr. of Brooklyn & Queens, 91 AD2d 1033, 1034; see also Matter of Grand Jury Investigation in N.Y. County, 98 NY2d 525, 530-531), provided that the requesting party "is not seeking to identify the patient by reference to the medical treatment he [or she] received" (Matter of Seymour, 288 AD2d 894, 894).

Contrary to the defendants' contention, in light of the broad range of services provided in a nursing home, the information requested by the plaintiff did not fall within the ambit of CPLR 4504(a) (see generally Rabinowitz v St. John's Episcopal Hosp., 24 AD3d 530; cf. Gunn v Sound Shore Med. Ctr. of Westchester, 5 AD3d 435, 437). Additionally, the information demanded by the plaintiff was necessary to the prosecution of the action and, as limited by the Supreme Court to the period from January 1, 2005, through February 28, 2005, and to only the residents of the decedent's particular unit of residency, the demand was not overly broad or unduly burdensome (see Grant v PALJR, LLC, 64 AD3d 750, 751).

Trueforge Global Mach. Corp. v Viraj Group., 2011 NY Slip Op 04040 (App. Div., 2nd 2011)

The Supreme Court properly denied the defendants' cross motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint pursuant to General Obligations Law § 5-701(a)(10). "[I]n a contract action[,] a memorandum sufficient to meet the requirements of the Statute of Frauds must contain expressly or by reasonable implication all the material terms of the agreement, including the rate of compensation if there has been agreement on that matter" (Morris Cohon & Co. v Russell, 23 NY2d 569, 575; see Intercontinental Planning v Daystrom, Inc., 24 NY2d 372, 378-379). "If an agreement is not reasonably certain in its material terms, there can be no legally enforceable contract" (Cobble Hill Nursing Home v Henry & Warren Corp., 74 NY2d 475, 482, cert denied 498 US 816; see Joseph Martin, Jr., Delicatessen v Schumacher, 52 NY2d 105, 109). Thus, "a mere agreement to agree, in which a material term is left for future negotiations, is unenforceable" (Joseph Martin, Jr., Delicatessen v Schumacher, 52 NY2d at 109; see 2004 McDonald Ave. Realty, LLC v 2004 McDonald Ave. Corp., 50 AD3d 1021; Andor Group v Benninghoff, 219 AD2d 573). Further, while General Obligations Law § 5-701(a)(10) applies to contracts implied in law to pay reasonable compensation (see Snyder v Bronfman, 13 NY3d 504), in an action to recover reasonable compensation, "a sufficient memorandum need only evidence the fact of plaintiff's employment by defendant to render the alleged services" (Morris Cohon & Co. v Russell, 23 NY2d at 575-576)."The obligation of the defendant to pay reasonable compensation for the services is then implied" (id. at 576). Contrary to the defendants' contention, they failed to establish their prima facie entitlement to judgment as a matter of law based on the statute of frauds, as certain e-mail correspondence (see General Obligations Law § 5-701[b][4]; Newmark & Co. Real Estate Inc. v 2615 E. 17 St. Realty LLC, 80 AD3d 476, 477; see also Intercontinental Planning v Daystrom, Inc., 24 NY2d at 379; Aloisi v Coin Phones, 157 AD2d 688) was sufficient to set forth an objective standard for determining the compensation to be paid to the plaintiff as a finder's fee, since it was tied to an extrinsic event, i.e., it was expressed as a percentage of the price paid by the defendants for the located acquisition opportunity, thus rendering the terms definite and enforceable (see Tonkery v Martina, 78 NY2d 893; Novello v 215 Rockaway, LLC, 70 AD3d 909; Edge Mgt. Corp. v Crossborder Exch. Corp., 304 AD2d 422; cf. MP Innovations, Inc. v Atlantic Horizon Intl., Inc., 72 AD3d 571).

Furthermore, the Supreme Court did not improvidently exercise its discretion in granting, upon reargument, the plaintiff's motion to compel a deposition of nonparty Neeraj Kochhar. "[A] corporation has the right in the first instance to determine which of its representatives will appear for an examination before trial" (Barone v Great Atl. & Pac. Tea Co., 260 AD2d 417, 417-418; see Aronson v Im, 81 AD3d 577, 577; Nunez v Chase Manhattan Bank, 71 AD3d 967; Mercado v Alexander, 227 AD2d 391). The moving party that is seeking additional depositions has the burden of demonstrating "(1) that the representatives already deposed had insufficient knowledge, or were otherwise inadequate, and (2) there is a substantial likelihood that the persons sought for depositions possess information which is material and necessary to the prosecution of the case" (Zollner v City of New York, 204 AD2d 626, 627; see Thristino v County of Suffolk, 78 AD3d 927; Spohn-Konen v Town of Brookhaven, 74 AD3d 1049; Seattle Pac. Indus., Inc. v Golden Val. Realty Assoc., 54 AD3d 930, 932-933; Nazario v City of New York, 27 AD3d 439; Barone v Great Atl. & Pac. Tea Co., 260 AD2d at 418). Here, the plaintiff satisfied this burden by demonstrating that the representative produced by the defendants for deposition did not have sufficient knowledge of the events giving rise to the complaint (see Nunez v Chase Manhattan Bank, 71 AD3d 967), and that there was a substantial likelihood that Neeraj Kochhar possessed information which was material and necessary to the issue of whether the plaintiff was entitled to payment of a finder's fee (see Nazario v City of New York, 27 AD3d 439; cf. Seattle Pac. Indus., Inc. v Golden Val. Realty Assoc., 54 AD3d at 932-933).

Waiver

Fernandez v City of New York, 2011 NY Slip Op 04111 (App. Div., 1st 2011)

Plaintiff has waived her claim that defendants' failure to produce "legible" photographs of the underside of the desk after the accident required an adverse inference that such photographs would have provided notice. The record shows that she was aware of the photographs yet filed a note of issue certifying that discovery was complete (see Escourse v City of New York, 27 AD3d 319 [2006]). In any event, the photographs would not have been probative as to notice, since the track was not visible until after the drawer fell.

Oh discovery, where art thou

Witherspoon v Surat Realty Corp., 2011 NY Slip Op 02380 (App. Div., 2nd 2011)

The Supreme Court properly denied that branch of the defendants' motion which was to strike the plaintiff's supplemental bill of particulars, including the particulars of the plaintiff's left shoulder surgery. Pursuant to CPLR 3043(b), a plaintiff may serve a supplemental bill of particulars containing "continuing special damages and disabilities" without leave of the court if it alleges "no new cause of action . . . or new injury." Where, as here, the plaintiff seeks to allege continuing consequences of the injuries suffered and described in previous bills of particulars, rather than new and unrelated injuries, the contested bill of particulars is a supplemental bill of particulars (see Tate v Colabello, 58 NY2d 84, 87; Maraviglia v Lokshina, 68 AD3d 1066, 1067; Shahid v New York City Health & Hosps. Corp., 47 AD3d 798, 800; Zenteno v Geils, 17 AD3d 457, 458), rather than an amended or new bill of particulars. Furthermore, there was no showing of prejudice to the defendants, as the supplemental bill of particulars was served more than 30 days prior to trial and the Supreme Court directed the parties to conduct further pretrial proceedings (see 22 NYCRR 202.21[d]; Maraviglia v Lokshina, 68 AD3d at 1067; Fortunato v Personal Woman's Care, P.C., 31 AD3d 370, 371).

The Supreme Court also properly denied that branch of the defendants' motion which was to vacate the note of issue and certificate of readiness. A motion to vacate the note of issue and certificate of readiness made more than 20 days after their service will be granted only where "a material fact in the certificate of readiness is incorrect" or upon "good cause shown" (22 NYCRR 202.21[e]; see Torres v Saint Vincents Catholic Med. Ctrs., 71 AD3d 873; Ferraro v North Babylon Union Free School Dist., 69 AD3d 559, 561). The defendants failed to satisfy these requirements (see Schenk v Maloney, 266 AD2d 199; Audiovox Corp. v Benyamini, 265 AD2d 135, 139; Stella v Ahmed, 223 AD2d 698).

Buxbaum v Castro, 2011 NY Slip Op 01967 (App. Div., 2nd 2011)

CPLR 3101(a) requires, in pertinent part, "full disclosure of all matter material and necessary in the prosecution or defense of an action." However, the principle of "full disclosure" does not give a party the right to uncontrolled and unfettered disclosure (Gilman & Ciocia, Inc. v Walsh, 45 AD3d 531, 531; see Peluso v Red Rose Rest., Inc., 78 AD3d 802, 803). The Supreme Court has broad discretion over the supervision of disclosure, and its determination will not be disturbed absent an improvident exercise of that discretion (see Foster v Herbert Slepoy Corp., 74 AD3d 1139, 1140; Reilly Green Mtn. Platform Tennis v Cortese, 59 AD3d 694, 695). Under the circumstances of this case, the Supreme Court did not improvidently exercise its discretion in denying that branch of the plaintiff's motion which was to direct the defendant to permit him and/or his "authorized computer forensic experts" to "impound, clone and inspect" certain computer equipment, including hard drives and other digital data storage devices, possessed by the defendant (see Gilman & Ciocia, Inc. v Walsh, 45 AD3d at 531).

Muzio v Napolitano, 2011 NY Slip Op 01987 (App. Div., 2nd 2011)

The defendants in this medical malpractice action conducted an interview of the plaintiff's treating physician, a nonparty, without obtaining a valid authorization pursuant to the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act of 1996 (Pub L No 104-191, 110 Stat 1936 [1996]). Notwithstanding the fact that the plaintiff placed her medical condition in controversy, the defendants were required to obtain an authorization expressly permitting an interview with her treating physician prior to conducting the interview (see Arons v Jutkowitz, 9 NY3d 393; Porcelli v Northern Westchester Hosp. Ctr., 65 AD3d 176). 

Since any information obtained by the defendants from the interview was "improperly . . . obtained" (CPLR 3103[c]), the Supreme Court should have granted that branch of the plaintiff's pretrial motion which was pursuant to CPLR 3103(c) for a protective order precluding the defendants from calling her treating physician to testify at trial as an expert witness for the defense, and from introducing, at trial, the information obtained from the interview (see Straub v Yalamanchili, 58 AD3d 1050; Surgical Design Corp. v Correa, 21 AD3d 409; Keschecki v St. Vincent's Med. Ctr., 5 Misc 3d 539).

Wigand v Modlin, 2011 NY Slip Op 02654 (App. Div., 2nd 2011)

In this action to recover damages for medical malpractice and lack of informed consent, the defendant moved, on the eve of trial, inter alia, to direct the plaintiff to appear for an independent medical examination (hereinafter IME). Thereafter, the Supreme Court issued a written order dated April 16, 2009, which, among other things, directed the plaintiff to appear for the IME. The plaintiff then moved, in effect, for leave to reargue her opposition to that branch of the defendant's motion which was to direct her to appear for the IME. Upon reargument, the Supreme Court adhered to its prior determination. We reverse the order insofar as appealed from.

The Supreme Court may, in its discretion, grant permission to conduct additional discovery after the filing of a note of issue and certificate of readiness where the moving party demonstrates that "unusual or unanticipated circumstances" developed subsequent to the filing, requiring additional pretrial proceedings to prevent substantial prejudice (22 NYCRR 202.21[d]; see Owen v Lester, 79 AD3d 992; Audiovox Corp. v Benyamini, 265 AD2d 135, 140). However, the Supreme Court erred in adhering to its determination granting that branch of the defendant's motion, made on the eve of trial, which was to direct the plaintiff to appear for an IME. The defendant failed to offer evidence of unusual or unanticipated circumstances that developed subsequent to the filing of the note of issue and certificate of readiness to justify relieving him of the consequences of his failure to conduct a timely medical examination of the plaintiff (see Owen v Lester, 79 AD3d 992; Manzo v City of New York, 62 AD3d 964, 965; Audiovox Corp. v Benyamini, 265 AD2d at 138).

 

Post Note of Issue Discovery and the "Wherefore" clause.

Don't get too caught up in the NOI discovery issue.  Read all the way down where the court discusses the "Wherefore" clause.  This is why you put in "such other, further, or different relief" etc etc etc.

22 NYCRR 202.21 Note of issue and certificate of readiness

Tirado v Miller, 2010 NY Slip Op 04364 (App. Term, 2nd, 2010)

A certificate of readiness certifies that all discovery is completed, waived, or not required and that the action is ready for trial (see 22 NYCRR 202.21[b]). The effect of a statement of readiness is to ordinarily foreclose further discovery (see Blondell v Malone, 91 AD2d 1201; Niagara Falls Urban Renewal Agency v Pomeroy Real Estate Corp., 74 AD2d 734; Bookazine Co. v J & A [*3]Bindery, 61 AD2d 919).

Discovery that is nevertheless sought after the filing of a note of issue and certificate of readiness is governed by a different set of procedural principles than discovery that is sought prior to the filing of a note of issue. Pre-note discovery includes disclosure of "all matter material and necessary in the prosecution or defense of an action" (see CPLR 3101[a]), which is to be liberally construed (see Allen v Crowell-Collier Publ. Co., 21 NY2d 403, 406; Byck v Byck, 294 AD2d 456, 457; U.S. Ice Cream Corp. v Carvel Corp., 190 AD2d 788). Post-note discovery, on the other hand, may only be sought under two procedural circumstances set forth in 22 NYCRR 202.21. As discussed by this Court in an opinion by Justice Feuerstein in Audiovox Corp. v Benyamini (265 AD2d 135, 138), one method of obtaining post-note discovery is to vacate the note of issue within 20 days of its service pursuant to 22 NYCRR 202.21(e), by merely showing that discovery is incomplete and the matter is not ready for trial. The second method, beyond that 20 days, requires that the movant, pursuant to 22 NYCRR 202.21(d), meet a more stringent standard and demonstrate "unusual or unanticipated circumstances and substantial prejudice" absent the additional discovery (Audiovox Corp. v Benyamini, 265 AD2d at 138; see Schroeder v IESI NY Corp., 24 AD3d 180, 181; Aviles v 938 SCY Ltd., 283 AD2d 935, 936).

Here, it is not contested that the note of issue and certificate of readiness were filed in February 2008. The note of issue was never stricken as a result of any motion filed within the 20-day deadline set forth in 22 NYCRR 202.21(a). Accordingly, any additional discovery sought by the plaintiff from Travelers must meet the requirements of 22 NYCRR 202.21(d) that the discovery be needed because of "unusual or unanticipated circumstances" and that its absence causes "substantial prejudice."

We recognize that the trial court did not grant any unrequested relief, but rather, granted the specific relief sought by the defendants and Travelers in their motion of quashing the plaintiff's subpoena and, in effect, granting a protective order. On appeal, the plaintiff takes issue, inter alia, with the Supreme Court's having determined the motion on a ground unrelated to the privilege and relevance issues briefed by the parties. However, in rendering decisions on motions, trial courts are not necessarily limited by the specific arguments raised by parties in their submissions. CPLR 2214(a) provides that a notice of motion shall specify the time and place of the hearing on the motion, the supporting papers upon which it is based, the relief demanded, and the grounds therefor. A court typically lacks the jurisdiction to grant relief that is not requested in the moving papers (see McGuire v McGuire, 29 AD3d 963, 965; NYCTL 1998-1 Trust v Prol Props. Corp., 18 AD3d 525, 527). The notice of motion in this instance sought an order quashing the subpoena and granting a protective order on the limited grounds of privilege and irrelevance. However, the notice of motion also contained a general prayer, for "such other and further relief as [the] [c]ourt may deem just and proper."

General relief clauses, for "such other, further, or different relief," are often included in notices of motion by practitioners to cover the possibility that the appropriate relief is not what the movant has specifically asked for, "but is close enough to enable the court to grant it" (Siegel, Practice Commentaries, McKinney's Cons Laws of NY, Book 7B, CPLR C2214:5). The presence of a general relief clause enables the court to grant relief that is not too dramatically unlike that which is actually sought, as long as the relief is supported by proof in the papers and the court is satisfied that no party is prejudiced (see Frankel v Stavsky, 40 AD3d 918; HCE Assoc. v 3000 Watermill Lane Realty Corp., 173 AD2d 774; Lanaris v Mutual Benefit Life Ins. Co., 9 AD2d 1015).

The bold is mine.

Late--but not too late--Jury Demand

Rosenbaum v Schlossman, 2010 NY Slip Op 03494 (App. Div., 1st, 2010)

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Milton A. Tingling, J.), entered March 30, 2009, which denied defendants' motion to vacate the note of issue, unanimously affirmed, without costs. Order, same court, Justice and entry date, which denied defendants' motion to stay a scheduled nonjury trial of this matter and compel the Clerk to accept a jury demand, unanimously modified, on the facts, to direct the Clerk to accept the jury demand nunc pro tunc, and, in view of the interim stay of trial previously ordered by this Court, the remainder of the appeal from said order unanimously dismissed as academic, without costs.

Defendants should be permitted to serve and file a late jury demand given that the lateness, by only five days, was due in part to the late filing of the note of issue, and also given no intention by defendants to waive a jury trial, a prompt motion by defendants to be relieved of their default in timely filing a jury demand, and no prejudice to plaintiff caused by the late jury demand (see A.S.L. Enters. v Venus Labs., 264 AD2d 372, 373 [1999]). Defendants' motion to vacate the note of issue was properly denied where defendants had received copies of plaintiff's letter to the court requesting the court's issuance of a written order memorializing a prior oral order extending the time to file a note of issue, but did not object to the requested relief or inform [*2]the court, at that time, of their view that disclosure was incomplete (22 NYCRR 202.21[d]). We have considered and rejected defendants' remaining contention.

The bold is mine.

Instead of simply writing that the remaining contention is "rejected" wouldn't it be nice if they said what the remaining contention was.

NYCRR 202.27; 22 NYCRR 202.21

22 NYCRR 202.27 Defaults

22 NYCRR 202.21 Note of issue and certificate of readiness

Donnelly v Treeline Cos., 66 AD3d 563 (App. Div., 1st, 2009)

A motion to vacate a dismissal for failure to appear at a scheduled court conference (22 NYCRR 202.27) is governed by CPLR 5015. Such a motion must be made within one year of service of a copy of the dismissal order with notice of entry, and be supported by a showing of reasonable excuse for the failure to attend the conference and a meritorious cause of action. Where the dismissal order has never been served with notice of entry, there is no time limit on making a motion to vacate the dismissal, and any alleged prejudice caused by postdismissal delay, short of laches, is not a consideration (Acevedo v Navarro, 22 AD3d 391 [2005]).

Plaintiff demonstrates both a reasonable excuse and the existence of a meritorious cause of action. The fact that none of the parties appeared for the scheduled court conference in July 2002 indicates that plaintiff's default was reasonable and likely attributable to the court's failure [*2]to notify everyone about the conference, whose date is not found in any prior conference order. Plaintiff's former attorney averred that his office was never notified of the conference or informed of the dismissal. Lack of receipt of notice can be a valid excuse for failure to appear at a conference (see Latha Rest. Corp. v Tower Ins. Co., 285 AD2d 437 [2001]).

Plaintiff has also established a meritorious cause of action. Indeed, on a prior appeal in 2004 (13 AD3d 143 [2004]), we affirmed the existence of numerous triable issues of fact concerning the liability of defendants Treeline and Commercial, and also of third-party defendant Republic.

Defendants contend that plaintiff's delay in moving to vacate the section 202.27 dismissal amounted to laches. While defendants were not apparently prejudiced in the two years immediately after the dismissal, during which they continued actively litigating, the case did thereafter remain inactive for a three-year period until plaintiff's motion to vacate the dismissal in 2007. This delay, though lengthy, was not unreasonable. In any event, defendants have not alleged prejudice from this delay, other than in conclusory fashion.

Figueroa v Sanchez, 2009 NY Slip Op 08881 (App. Div., 1st, 2009)

Due to his incarceration, plaintiff defaulted by failing to appear at a preliminary conference (22 NYCRR 202.27). The only remedy for plaintiff's default in these circumstances is not an appeal, but rather a motion in Supreme Court to vacate the default (see Campos v New York City Health & Hosps. Corp., 307 AD2d 785, 786 [2003]). In the present posture of the case, there is no appealable order for this Court to review. Finally, we note that plaintiff claims that he made numerous attempts to communicate with the court about his appearances that were not addressed.

Gaskin v Ilowitz, 2010 NY Slip Op 00097 (App. Div., 2nd, 2010)

The plaintiff's certificate of readiness incorrectly stated that the bill of particulars, physical examinations, exchange of medical reports, and any discovery proceedings known to be necessary were waived. In addition, it falsely declared that preliminary proceedings had been completed and that the case was ready for trial. Because of these misstatements of material facts, that branch of the defendant's motion which was to vacate the note of issue was properly granted (Brown v Astoria Fed. Sav., 51 AD3d 961, 962; see 22 NYCRR 202.21[e]; Gregory v Ford Motor Credit Co., 298 AD2d 496, 497; Spilky v TRW, Inc., 225 AD2d 539, 540).

Ferraro v North Babylon Union Free School Dist., 2010 NY Slip Op 00095 (App. Div., 2nd, 2010)

A motion for vacatur of the note of issue and certificate of readiness made more than 20 days after their filing will be granted only where "a material fact in the certificate of readiness is incorrect" or upon "good cause shown" (22 NYCRR 202.21[e]). To satisfy the requirement of "good cause," the party seeking vacatur must "demonstrate that unusual or unanticipated circumstances developed subsequent to the filing of the note of issue and certificate of readiness requiring additional pretrial proceedings to prevent substantial prejudice" (White v Mazella-White, 60 AD3d 1047, 1049, quoting Utica Mut. Ins. Co. v P.M.A. Corp., 34 AD3d 793, 794). Here, the plaintiffs neither proffered an excuse for their delay (id. at 794), nor "demonstrate[d] . . . unusual or unanticipated circumstances" (White v Mazella-White, 60 AD3d at 1049). Accordingly, the court properly denied that branch of the plaintiffs' cross motion which was to vacate the note of issue and certificate of readiness.

Singh v City of New York, 2009 NY Slip Op 09646 (App. Div., 2nd, 2009)

[T]hat branch of the defendants' motion which, in effect, was to compel the plaintiffs to respond to additional discovery demands regarding the immigration status of the plaintiff Harminder Singh is denied. While the Supreme Court may, in its discretion, grant permission to conduct additional discovery after the filing of a note of issue and certificate of readiness where the moving party demonstrates that "unusual or unanticipated circumstances" developed subsequent to the filing which require additional pretrial proceedings to prevent substantial prejudice (see 22 NYCRR 202.21[d]; Audiovox Corp. v Benyamini, 265 AD2d 135, 138; Futersak v Brinen, 265 AD2d 452), here, the defendants failed to establish any such unusual or unanticipated circumstances that would warrant the additional post-note-of-issue discovery they sought (see 22 NYCRR 202.21[d]; Audiovox Corp. v Benyamini, 265 AD2d 135; Futersak v Brinen, 265 AD2d 452). The defendants also failed to establish that the denial of their request would cause them actual, substantial prejudice (see Audiovox Corp. v Benyamini, 265 AD2d at 139).

The bold is mine.

Today in the First Department (22 NYCRR 202.2, CPLR R. 3211, CPLR R. 3212, CPLR § 306-b, CPLR § 3121, SOL)

Several decisions popped out of the Appellate Division, First Department,  today.  In a break from my normal posting style, where I try to split posts between sections and rules, I'm going to post the few decisions that I found interesting.

Ocasio-Gary v Lawrence Hosp., 2010 NY Slip Op 00003 (App. Div., 1st, 2009)

Even had St. Barnabas met its initial burden, plaintiff's expert's submission raises triable issues of fact regarding the hospital's negligence (see DaRonco v White Plains Hosp. Ctr., 215 AD2d 339 [1995]). The trial court should not have rejected the expert's opinion on the ground that the expert failed to expressly state that he or she possessed the requisite background and knowledge in emergency medicine to render an opinion. The expert, who is board certified in internal medicine, is qualified to render an opinion as to diagnosis and treatment with respect to the symptoms presented by the decedent. In contrast, the expert's affirmation in Browder v New York City Health & Hosps. Corp. (37 AD3d 375 [2007]), cited by the trial court, failed to indicate either the expert's specialty or that he or she possessed the requisite knowledge to furnish a reliable opinion. Venue should be retained in Bronx County. The only ground for the motion to change venue was the dismissal of the complaint against St. Barnabas, and the complaint has been reinstated.

The motion to vacate plaintiff's note of issue, served more than 20 days after service of that note, was properly denied as untimely (see 22 NYCRR 202.21[e]), "no showing of special circumstances or adequate reason for the delay having been offered" (Arnold v New York City Hous. Auth., 282 AD2d 378 [2001]). Nor did the court err in finding that defendant Orin failed to demonstrate good cause for an extension of time in which to file his motion for summary judgment (CPLR 3212[a]; Brill v City of New York, 2 NY3d 648, 652 [2004]).

Johnson v Concourse Vil., Inc., 2010 NY Slip Op 00010 (App. Div., 1st, 2009)

Although plaintiff's counsel served her pleadings just one day after the applicable 120-day service period expired (see CPLR 306-b), and counsel offered proof that he attempted to arrange for service with eight days remaining out of the 120-day period, he nonetheless failed to show diligence in his efforts to effect service, particularly as the three-year statute of limitations (CPLR 214[5]) had already expired, and he did not follow up with the process server regarding completion of service until after the 120-day service period had expired. There was no evidence to indicate that the corporate defendants could not be located, or that they could not be readily served through the Secretary of State. Furthermore, counsel waited until after defendants moved to dismiss before he cross-moved for an extension of the time to serve some several months later. Such evidence of lack of diligence undermines plaintiff's "good cause" argument in support of her extension request (see generally Leader v Maroney, Ponzini & Spencer, 97 NY2d 95 [2001]).

Nor is a grant of an extension to serve the pleadings warranted in the interest of justice. The circumstances presented, including that the statute of limitations expired, plaintiff's lack of diligence in prosecuting this action, the lack of probative evidence offered as to the claim's merit, the vague allegations of injury, the lack of notice given of the claim for more than three years and three months, the prejudice to defendants and the several month delay in moving for an extension of the time to serve, demonstrate that the dismissal of this action was appropriate (see Slate v Schiavone Constr. Co., 4 NY3d 816 [2005]; Posada v Pelaez, 37 AD3d 168 [2007]; compare de Vries v Metropolitan Tr. Auth., 11 AD3d 312 [2004]).

One day late.

Suss v New York Media, Inc., 2010 NY Slip Op 00011 (App. Div., 1st, 2009)

We reject plaintiff's argument that such evidence fails to show, prima facie, that the issue first was published on April 29. The affidavits submitted by defendants were made with personal knowledge of the issue's distribution date; the distributor's affidavit was the proper vehicle for the submission of photographs taken by him and his staff (see H.P.S. Capitol v Mobil Oil Corp., 186 AD2d 98, 98 [1992]); and the photographs, as enhanced and highlighted in defendants' reply, clearly depict what they are claimed to depict. In opposition, plaintiff failed to submit any evidence of a later publication.

We also reject plaintiff's argument that unless the court gives CPLR 3211(c) notice of its intention to do so, it may not consider nondocumentary evidentiary materials for fact-finding purposes on a motion to dismiss pursuant to CPLR 3211(a)(5) (see Alverio v New York Eye & [*2]Ear Infirmary, 123 AD2d 568 [1986]; Lim v Choices, Inc., 60 AD3d 739 [2009]).

Welter v Feigenbaum, 2010 NY Slip Op 00012 (App. Div., 1st, 2009)

A plaintiff, in an action for negligent transmittal of genital herpes simplex II, may demand that the defendant submit to a blood test to determine if the latter indeed has the virus (see CPLR 3121). Since the test was ordered in conjunction with the litigation, it is not subject to the physician-patient privilege (see Connors, McKinney's CPLR Practice Commentary C3121:2). Even were the privilege to apply, defendant waived it by asserting the affirmative defense that he was asymptomatic (see e.g. Dillenbeck v Hess, 73 NY2d 278, 287-288 [1989]). Defendant's effort to limit the scope of discovery has simply focused the issue on whether or not he has the virus. This issue is relevant to — and potentially dispositive of — the action. If the test is negative, the case will be subject to dismissal. If, on the other hand, it is positive, defendant will have an opportunity to prove his affirmative defenses that he did not have the virus in 2002, or was unaware that he had it or was asymptomatic at the time of alleged transmittal to plaintiff.

All concur except Andrias and McGuire, JJ., who concur in a separate memorandum by McGuire, J. as follows:

McGUIRE, J. (concurring)

We write separately to emphasize that we express no view on the issue of whether, if the test is positive, it is admissible at trial (see People v Scarola, 71 NY2d 769, 777 [1988] ["(e)ven where technically relevant evidence is admissible, it may still be excluded by the trial court in the [*2]exercise of its discretion if its probative value is substantially outweighed by the danger that it will unfairly prejudice the other side or mislead the jury"]).

The herpes case.

Post Note of Issue Discovery and Privilege, but not in that order

22 NYCRR 202.21 Note of issue and certificate of readiness

CPLR § 3101(d) Trial Preparation (2) Materials

CPLR § 3101(c)  Attorney's work product

McClier Corp. v United States Rebar, Inc., 2009 NY Slip Op 06786 (App. Div., 1st, 2009)

In response to plaintiff's discovery demands, defendants submitted privilege logs that identified each of the documents withheld and set forth a basis for the assertion of a privilege as to each. The motion court then conducted an in camera review of the withheld documents and ruled that most were protected by either the attorney-client privilege (CPLR 3101[b]) or the immunities for attorney work product (CPLR 3101[c]) and materials prepared for litigation (CPLR 3101[d][2]). No basis exists to disturb this ruling. Documents in an insurer's claim file that were prepared for litigation against its insured are immune from disclosure (Grotallio v Soft Drink Leasing Corp., 97 AD2d 383 [1983]), and, while documents prepared in an insurer's ordinary course of business in investigating whether to accept or reject coverage are discoverable (Brooklyn Union Gas Co. v American Home Assur. Co., 23 AD3d 190, 191 [2005]), there is no [*2]indication that any such documents are being protected here. We have considered plaintiff's remaining arguments and find unavailing.

Compare with 148 Magnolia, LLC v Merrimack Mut. Fire Ins. Co., 2009 NY Slip Op 03793 (App. Div., 1st, 2009)("Here the motion court properly determined that the documents were not protected because appellant failed to demonstrate that the investigation was conducted solely in anticipation of litigation. Such reports of insurance investigators or adjusters prepared during the processing of a claim are discoverable in the regular course of the insurance company's business")

Singh v 244 W. 39th St. Realty, Inc., 2009 NY Slip Op 06826 (App. Div., 2nd, 2009)

To prevent substantial prejudice, the Supreme Court, in its discretion, may grant leave to conduct additional discovery after the filing of a note of issue and certificate of readiness where the moving party demonstrates that "unusual or unanticipated circumstances" developed subsequent to the filing requiring additional pretrial proceedings (22 NYCRR 202.21[d]; see James v New York City Tr. Auth., 294 AD2d 471, 472; Audiovox Corp. v Benyamini, 265 AD2d 135, 140). Here, approximately nine months after the filing of the note of issue, the plaintiff served a supplemental bill of particulars and an expert report with worksheets alleging that the cost of his future medical care would be approximately $8.9 million. This amount was more than three times what had been alleged earlier. Under these circumstances, the defendants demonstrated that "unusual or unanticipated circumstances" developed subsequent to the filing of the note of issue, justifying an additional deposition of the plaintiff regarding his claim for future medical care (cf. Karakostas v Avis Rent A Car Sys., 306 AD2d 381, 382). Accordingly, that branch of the defendants' motion which was for leave to conduct additional discovery of the plaintiff with respect to his claim for future medical care should have been granted.

The defendants, however, failed to demonstrate that "unusual or unanticipated circumstances" developed subsequent to the filing of the note of issue with respect to surveillance videos [*2]of the plaintiff or the plaintiff's claim for lost wages. The plaintiff's supplemental bill of particulars claiming lost wages was served approximately nine months prior to the filing of the note of issue and one year and eight months prior to the defendants' motion, and the plaintiff did not allege that the amount of his claim for lost wages, as opposed to his claim for future medical care, had changed dramatically (see Schenk v Maloney, 266 AD2d 199, 200; Frangella v Sussman, 254 AD2d 391, 392). Moreover, the defendants failed to explain why the surveillance could not have been conducted earlier in the discovery process (see Audiovox Corp. v Benyamini, 265 AD2d at 140). Accordingly, those branches of the defendants' motion which were for leave to conduct additional discovery of the plaintiff with respect to the surveillance videos and his claim for lost wages were properly denied.

Polygram Holding, Inc. v Cafaro, 2009 NY Slip Op 07165 (App. Div., 1st, 2009)

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Eileen Bransten, J.), entered April 29, 2009, which, to the extent appealed from as limited by the briefs, limited the scope of an EBT granted to defendant and denied defendant's motion to strike the note of issue, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

The court appropriately struck a discretionary balance in granting defendant certain additional discovery consistent with our prior discovery ruling in this matter (42 AD3d 339, 340-341), while maintaining control of its trial calendar (Brooklyn Union Gas Co. v American Home Assur. Co., 23 AD3d 190 [2005]).

The bold, of course, is mine.

Post-NOT Discovery; 22 NYCRR 202.21

22 NYCRR 202.21 Note of issue and certificate of readiness

CPLR § 3126 Penalties for refusal to comply with order or to disclose

CPLR R. 5515 Taking an appeal; notice of appeal

1. An appeal shall be taken by serving on the adverse party a notice of appeal and filing it in the office where the judgment or order of the court of original instance is entered except that where an order granting permission to appeal is made, the appeal is taken when such order is entered. A notice shall designate the party taking the appeal, the judgment or order or specific part of the judgment or order appealed from and the court to which the appeal is taken.

Racine v Grant, 2009 NY Slip Op 06127 (App. Div., 2nd, 2009)

The Supreme Court improvidently exercised its discretion in granting the defendants' cross motion pursuant to CPLR 3216 to dismiss the complaint to the extent of directing the plaintiff to comply with a demand for discovery which was annexed to the cross motion papers, as the demand was made more than one year after a note of issue had been filed in the action. The defendants failed to make the requisite showing that "unusual or unanticipated circumstances" had arisen after the filing of the note of issue (22 NYCRR 202.21[d], [e]; see Silverberg v Guzman, 61 AD3d 955; Utica Mut. Ins. Co. v P.M.A. Corp., 34 AD3d 793, 794; Audiovox Corp. v Benyamini, 265 AD2d 135, 138; Marks v Morrison, 275 AD2d 1027), to justify the demanded disclosure at this late stage of the action.

The plaintiff's argument that the Supreme Court should have granted his motion to strike the defendants' answer is not properly before us, as the plaintiff's notice of appeal limited the scope of the appeal to that part of the Supreme Court's order which determined the defendants' cross [*2]motion (see CPLR 5515[1]; Marciano v Ran Oil Co., E., LLC, 63 AD3d 1118).

The bold is mine.

Law of the case

Yetnikoff v Mascardo, 2009 NY Slip Op 04712 (App. Div., 1st, 2009)

Plaintiff moved to vacate his default, arguing he had never received the landlord defendants' motion for summary judgment on the counterclaims. This motion was also denied on the ground that plaintiff failed to provide a reasonable excuse for his default or evidence of a meritorious defense.

With respect to the court's modification of its statement concerning the landlord's position on rescission, the court correctly found that counsel's statement that she had made a mistake in communicating to the court was new evidence properly considered on the motion. The law of the case is not implicated when a court alters its own ruling (see Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. v Zurich Am. Ins. Co., 59 AD3d 333, 335 [2009]).

Riskin v Pam Vic Enters., Ltd., 2009 NY Slip Op 04730 (App. Div., 1st, 2009)

The court did not err in re-referring the matter of calculating the amount due to plaintiffs to a referee, inasmuch as no report was filed after the previous referral. Plaintiffs' claim, that the previous grant of partial summary judgment to them as against defendants in this foreclosure action became the "law of the case" and extinguished the claims of the proposed intervenor, Ted Singer, is unpreserved. Were we to review it, we would find that the law of the case doctrine does not apply, since Singer was not a party to the earlier proceedings herein (see Hass & Gottlieb v Sook Hi Lee, 11 AD3d 230, 231-232 [2004]).

The bold is mine.