From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Macaluso v. Glengariff Corp.

Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Second Department, New York.
Aug 30, 2017
153 A.D.3d 915 (N.Y. App. Div. 2017)

Opinion

08-30-2017

Giuseppe MACALUSO, respondent, v. GLENGARIFF CORPORATION, appellant.

Melito & Adolfsen P.C., New York, NY (Robert D. Ely of counsel), for appellant. Dalli & Marino, LLP (Pollack Pollack Isaac & DeCicco, LLP, New York, NY [Brian J. Isaac and Jillian Rosen ], of counsel), for respondent.


Melito & Adolfsen P.C., New York, NY (Robert D. Ely of counsel), for appellant.

Dalli & Marino, LLP (Pollack Pollack Isaac & DeCicco, LLP, New York, NY [Brian J. Isaac and Jillian Rosen ], of counsel), for respondent.

In an action, inter alia, to recover damages for personal injuries, the defendant appeals from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Queens County (McDonald, J.), entered August 25, 2016, as granted that branch of the plaintiff's motion which was to compel it to comply with discovery demands.

ORDERED that the order is reversed insofar as appealed from, on the law, with costs, and that branch of the plaintiff's motion which was to compel the defendant to comply with discovery demands is denied.

Approximately four months after filing a note of issue and certificate of readiness for trial, the plaintiff made discovery demands. After the defendant objected on the ground that the note of issue had already been filed, the plaintiff moved, inter alia, to compel the defendant to comply with the demands. The Supreme Court granted that branch of the plaintiff's motion, and the defendant appeals.

The Supreme Court should have denied that branch of the plaintiff's motion which was to compel the defendant to comply with the discovery demands. The plaintiff failed to demonstrate the existence of unusual or unanticipated circumstances that developed subsequent to the filing of the note of issue warranting additional discovery to prevent substantial prejudice (see 22 NYCRR 202.21 [d]; Matthew v. City of New York, 90 A.D.3d 1002, 934 N.Y.S.2d 859 ; Tirado v. Miller, 75 A.D.3d 153, 161, 901 N.Y.S.2d 358 ; Audiovox Corp. v. Benyamini, 265 A.D.2d 135, 140, 707 N.Y.S.2d 137 ).

HALL, J.P., ROMAN, COHEN and BARROS, JJ., concur.


Summaries of

Macaluso v. Glengariff Corp.

Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Second Department, New York.
Aug 30, 2017
153 A.D.3d 915 (N.Y. App. Div. 2017)
Case details for

Macaluso v. Glengariff Corp.

Case Details

Full title:Giuseppe MACALUSO, respondent, v. GLENGARIFF CORPORATION, appellant.

Court:Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Second Department, New York.

Date published: Aug 30, 2017

Citations

153 A.D.3d 915 (N.Y. App. Div. 2017)
153 A.D.3d 915

Citing Cases

HSBC Bank USA v. Ahmad

The rule goes on to provide that after twenty days, the party seeking to vacate the note of issue must…