From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Colon v. Yen Ru Jin

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, First Department
Nov 13, 2007
45 A.D.3d 359 (N.Y. App. Div. 2007)

Opinion

No. 1982, 22975/04.

November 13, 2007.

Order, Supreme Court, Bronx County (Alison Y. Tuitt, J.), entered July 17, 2006, which denied defendant's motion to vacate the note of issue, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

Cheven, Keely Hatzis, New York (William B. Stock of counsel), for appellant.

Mansour, Winn, Kurland Warner, LLP, Lake Success (Stephen G.Winn of counsel), for respondent.

Before: Saxe, J.P., Friedman, Sweeny, McGuire and Malone, JJ.


Defendant failed to demonstrate any unusual or unanticipated circumstances warranting vacatur of the note of issue more than three months after it was served on him ( see 22 NYCRR 202.21 [d], [e]). A lack of diligence in seeking discovery does not constitute such circumstances ( Marks v Morrison, 275 AD2d 1027). The record discloses that defendant failed to avail himself of several opportunities to conduct plaintiffs deposition and medical examination prior to the deadline set forth in the court's compliance conference order, thereby waiving any right he had to additional discovery ( see Rosenberg Estis, P.C. v Bergos, 18 AD3d 218).


Summaries of

Colon v. Yen Ru Jin

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, First Department
Nov 13, 2007
45 A.D.3d 359 (N.Y. App. Div. 2007)
Case details for

Colon v. Yen Ru Jin

Case Details

Full title:MARCUS COLON, Respondent, v. YEN RU JIN, Appellant

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

Date published: Nov 13, 2007

Citations

45 A.D.3d 359 (N.Y. App. Div. 2007)
2007 N.Y. Slip Op. 8762
845 N.Y.S.2d 281

Citing Cases

Vargas v. S.F. Assocs. Ltd. P'ship

Madison v. Sama, 92 A.D.3d 607, 607 (1st Dep't 2012); Schroeder v. IESI NY Corp., 24 A.D.3d 180, 181 (1st…

Taylor v. Enter. FM Tr.

It is well settled that "[a] lack of diligence in seeking discovery does not constitute" "unusual or…