From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Bilotti v. City of New York

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Dec 13, 1993
199 A.D.2d 297 (N.Y. App. Div. 1993)

Opinion

December 13, 1993

Appeal from the Supreme Court, Richmond County (Sangiorgio, J.).


Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.

The Supreme Court did not improvidently exercise its discretion in denying the plaintiffs' motion to strike the action from the trial calendar. The motion was made more than three years after the plaintiffs had filed a note of issue and a certificate of readiness, and more than 9 1/2 years after they had commenced this action. Thus, the record demonstrates that the plaintiffs had ample opportunity to conduct discovery (see, Tilden Fin. Corp. v Muffoletto, 161 A.D.2d 583).

Further, the court did not improvidently exercise its discretion in refusing to allow the plaintiffs to conduct additional pretrial proceedings (see, Blankenship v Schwartz, 127 A.D.2d 624). Bracken, J.P., Balletta, Eiber, O'Brien and Pizzuto, JJ., concur.


Summaries of

Bilotti v. City of New York

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Dec 13, 1993
199 A.D.2d 297 (N.Y. App. Div. 1993)
Case details for

Bilotti v. City of New York

Case Details

Full title:SCOTT BILOTTI, an Infant, by His Father and Natural Guardian, VINCENT…

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

Date published: Dec 13, 1993

Citations

199 A.D.2d 297 (N.Y. App. Div. 1993)
606 N.Y.S.2d 1003

Citing Cases

Media Neurology, P.C. v. Liberty Mut. Ins. Co.

Generally, discovery is not permitted after a Notice of Trial is filed. Bilotti v. City of New York, 199 AD2d…