From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Blankenship v. Schwartz

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Feb 9, 1987
127 A.D.2d 624 (N.Y. App. Div. 1987)

Opinion

February 9, 1987

Appeal from the Supreme Court, Nassau County (Velsor, J.).


Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.

Based upon the record before us, we conclude that the appellants failed to demonstrate that "unusual or unanticipated circumstances" developed subsequent to the filing of the note of issue and certificate of readiness, thereby warranting additional pretrial proceedings (see, Chaloupka v. Neil's Plumbing Heating, 114 A.D.2d 833, 834; Di Maria v. Coordinated Ranches, 114 A.D.2d 397; Ehrhart v. County of Nassau, 106 A.D.2d 488; 22 NYCRR former 675.7, 103.4; now 22 NYCRR 202.21 [d]). Accordingly, Special Term properly denied the appellants' motion. Thompson, J.P., Niehoff, Weinstein, Kunzeman and Spatt, JJ., concur.


Summaries of

Blankenship v. Schwartz

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Feb 9, 1987
127 A.D.2d 624 (N.Y. App. Div. 1987)
Case details for

Blankenship v. Schwartz

Case Details

Full title:JOHN G. BLANKENSHIP et al., Respondents, v. ROBERT B. SCHWARTZ, Defendant…

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

Date published: Feb 9, 1987

Citations

127 A.D.2d 624 (N.Y. App. Div. 1987)

Citing Cases

Rhodes v. Stoddard

The Supreme Court providently exercised its discretion in denying the defendant's motion, made on the eve of…

Bilotti v. City of New York

Thus, the record demonstrates that the plaintiffs had ample opportunity to conduct discovery (see, Tilden…