Opinion
December 22, 1992
Appeal from the Supreme Court, New York County (Harold Baer, Jr., J.).
Plaintiff's note of issue and statement of readiness in this construction accident case were served at a time when Masons had yet to be joined as a party defendant in the main action brought by plaintiff and, consequently, had not yet served its answer therein. Clearly, Masons had no reasonable opportunity to complete discovery vis-a-vis plaintiff. Under the circumstances, it was an improvident exercise of discretion for the IAS Court to retain the action on the trial calendar, even giving appropriate weight to Masons' failure to move within the ordinarily applicable 20-day period and its delay thereafter (Hyman Gilbert v Greenstein, 138 A.D.2d 678; Conford Co. v Fordham Concourse Realty Assocs., 119 A.D.2d 526).
Concur — Carro, J.P., Rosenberger, Wallach and Ross, JJ.