Opinion
309441/09, 4712N, 4711.
10-17-2017
Efrain MATOS, Plaintiff–Respondent, v. The CITY OF NEW YORK, Defendant–Appellant.
Zachary W. Carter, Corporation Counsel, New York (Damion K.L. Stodola of counsel), for appellant. Stecklow & Thompson, New York (David Thompson of counsel), for respondent.
Zachary W. Carter, Corporation Counsel, New York (Damion K.L. Stodola of counsel), for appellant.
Stecklow & Thompson, New York (David Thompson of counsel), for respondent.
TOM, J.P., RICHTER, ANDRIAS, GESMER, SINGH, JJ.
Order, Supreme Court, Bronx County (Larry S. Schachner, J.), entered June 9, 2016, which, to the extent appealed from as limited by the briefs, granted plaintiff's motion to vacate his note of issue, and order, same court and Justice, entered January
19, 2017, which, to the extent appealed from as limited by the briefs, granted plaintiff's motion to compel defendant to comply with outstanding discovery demands, unanimously affirmed, without costs.
The motion court providently exercised its discretion in vacating plaintiff's note of issue where plaintiff's former counsel made a material misstatement that discovery was complete. A note of issue should be vacated where "it is based upon a certificate of readiness that incorrectly states that all discovery has been completed" ( Nielsen v. New York State Dormitory Auth., 84 A.D.3d 519, 520, 923 N.Y.S.2d 66 [1st Dept.2011] ). Since discovery was not completed, the motion court correctly vacated the note of issue (see Gomes v. Valentine Realty LLC, 32 A.D.3d 699, 700, 822 N.Y.S.2d 2 [1st Dept.2006] ; Cromer v. Yellen, 268 A.D.2d 381, 702 N.Y.S.2d 277 [1st Dept.2000] ). Upon vacatur of the note of issue, the case was restored to its pre-note of issue status (see Tejeda v. Dyal, 125 A.D.3d 578, 1 N.Y.S.3d 818 [1st Dept.2015] ). Accordingly, the court properly granted plaintiff's motion to compel defendant to comply with outstanding discovery demands.
We have considered defendant's remaining contentions and find them unavailing.