From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Conford v. Fordham Concourse Realty Assoc

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, First Department
Apr 22, 1986
119 A.D.2d 526 (N.Y. App. Div. 1986)

Opinion

April 22, 1986

Appeal from the Supreme Court, New York County (Amos E. Bowman, J.).


Order of the Supreme Court, New York County (Louis Grossman, J.), entered on or about December 5, 1985, which denied plaintiff's motion to vacate the note of issue filed by defendant, is reversed, on the law and the facts, and the motion granted, without costs or disbursements.

During the oral arguments held in connection with this matter, defendant landlord stated that the parties were in the process of completing discovery in the Supreme Court which, according to defendant, should resolve the issue in dispute herein. Since defendant has indicated that it favors a determination by the Supreme Court, injunctive relief (Yellowstone) is not required.

Special Term should have granted plaintiff's motion for an order striking defendant's note of issue. The note of issue, which was filed before the case was, in fact, ready for trial, was based upon an erroneous statement of readiness when it wrongly asserted that plaintiff had waived discovery. Moreover, not only had discovery not yet transpired, but defendant had, at the time, apparently not even served an answer to plaintiff's verified complaint.

Concur — Sandler, J.P., Ross, Milonas, Rosenberger and Ellerin, JJ.


Summaries of

Conford v. Fordham Concourse Realty Assoc

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, First Department
Apr 22, 1986
119 A.D.2d 526 (N.Y. App. Div. 1986)
Case details for

Conford v. Fordham Concourse Realty Assoc

Case Details

Full title:CONFORD COMPANY, Appellant, v. FORDHAM CONCOURSE REALTY ASSOCIATES…

Court:Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, First Department

Date published: Apr 22, 1986

Citations

119 A.D.2d 526 (N.Y. App. Div. 1986)

Citing Cases

Savino v. Lewittes

Applying Uniform Rules for Trial Courts § 202.21 (e) to the case before us, we find that the plaintiff's…

Pruss v. Amtrust N. Am. Inc.

see also, Cromer v. Yellen, 268 A.D.2d 381 (1st Dep't 2000); Friedman & Kaplan v. Hoffman, 166 A.D.2d 188…