Opinion
2012-02-28
Michael MADISON, Plaintiff–Respondent, v. Andrew A. SAMA, M.D., et al., Defendants–Appellants.
Peltz & Walker, New York (Bhalinder L. Rikhye of counsel), for appellants. Arthur G. Nevins, Jr., New York, for respondent.
Peltz & Walker, New York (Bhalinder L. Rikhye of counsel), for appellants. Arthur G. Nevins, Jr., New York, for respondent.
Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Alice Schlesinger, J.), entered July 29, 2011, which, after directing plaintiff to amend his bill of particulars to include new injuries and a new theory of the case, *803 granted plaintiff's motion to further depose defendant Sama, unanimously reversed, on the law, without costs, and the motion denied.
Plaintiff requested leave to conduct a further deposition of defendant Sama after filing a note of issue and certificate of readiness for trial. The only reason that plaintiff proffered for this request was that the expert engaged by his new counsel to review the file had discovered areas of inquiry that his former counsel had failed to pursue. This is insufficient to establish that “unusual or unanticipated circumstances” had developed requiring further discovery “to prevent substantial prejudice” ( see 22 NYCRR 202.21[d]; Schroeder v. IESI N.Y. Corp., 24 A.D.3d 180, 805 N.Y.S.2d 79 [2005] ).