Opinion
October 15, 1985
Appeal from the Supreme Court, Queens County (Lerner, J.).
Order dated November 20, 1984 affirmed, insofar as appealed from, without costs or disbursements.
By service of summons and verified complaint, on or about March 29, 1982, plaintiff Rose Marie Di Maria instituted this action against defendant Coordinated Ranches, Inc. to recover damages for personal injuries allegedly sustained at defendant's ranch. On or about July 30, 1984, plaintiff filed a note of issue and certificate of readiness. On or about August 29, 1984, defendant served a notice upon plaintiff that it would depose two nonparty witnesses. Plaintiff moved for a protective order alleging, inter alia, that further discovery was prohibited subsequent to the filing of a note of issue and statement of readiness.
Trial Term granted plaintiff's motion by order dated September 14, 1984. Defendant's motion for reargument was granted and, upon reargument, Trial Term adhered to the original determination in an order dated November 20, 1984.
Under the court rules for this department, a party must establish that "unusual and unanticipated conditions" developed subsequent to the filing of the statement of readiness in order to warrant further pretrial discovery (22 NYCRR 675.7). Incompleteness of discovery is not an "unusual and unanticipated" circumstance arising after the filing of the certificate of readiness (Gravina v First Presbyt. Church, 103 A.D.2d 819). In this case, defendant knew the identity of the individuals sought to be deposed and the significance of their testimony prior to the placement of the case on the Trial Calendar. In such a case, a request for further examinations should be denied (Ehrhart v County of Nassau, 106 A.D.2d 488; Holbin v Port Auth., 88 A.D.2d 990). Brown, J.P., Rubin, Lawrence and Kooper, JJ., concur.