From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Fox Co., Inc. v. Sleicher

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Oct 5, 1992
186 A.D.2d 537 (N.Y. App. Div. 1992)

Opinion

October 5, 1992

Appeal from the Supreme Court, Nassau County (Levitt, J.).


Ordered that the order is reversed, on the law, without costs or disbursements, and the motion is denied.

It is well settled that a party who desires discovery after the filing of a note of issue must move for vacatur of the note of issue within 20 days after service of the note of issue (see, 22 NYCRR 202.21 [e]; Keane v Ranbar Packing, 121 A.D.2d 601). It is equally well established that the movant must demonstrate that "unusual and unanticipated circumstances develop[ed] subsequent to the filing of [the] note of issue and certificate of readiness which require pretrial proceedings to prevent substantial prejudice" ( 22 NYCRR 202.21 [d]; Bonavita v Crudo, 124 A.D.2d 619, 620; Keane v Ranbar Packing, supra). In the case at bar, the defendant complied with neither requirement, and is, therefore, not entitled to depose the plaintiff. Bracken, J.P., Lawrence, Miller, Copertino and Santucci, JJ., concur.


Summaries of

Fox Co., Inc. v. Sleicher

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Oct 5, 1992
186 A.D.2d 537 (N.Y. App. Div. 1992)
Case details for

Fox Co., Inc. v. Sleicher

Case Details

Full title:HENRY L. FOX CO., INC., Appellant, v. ARLENE SLEICHER, Respondent

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

Date published: Oct 5, 1992

Citations

186 A.D.2d 537 (N.Y. App. Div. 1992)

Citing Cases

Vanarthros v. St. Francis Hospital

Moreover, St. Francis failed to demonstrate that the former and current representation by Wilson, Elser of…

Tirado v. Miller

The plaintiff never moved or cross-moved for relief under 22 NYCRR 202.21 (d) to obtain the additional…