Opinion
December 10, 1998
Appeal from the Supreme Court, New York County (Carol Huff, J.).
Adjournment of the trial for completion of disclosure on the paternity issue was justified by an "unanticipated" circumstance ( 22 NYCRR 202.21 [d]), namely, defendants' claimed need for such disclosure notwithstanding the prior order that had denied their prior eve-of-trial motion for summary judgment on the paternity issue upon "fairly strong" evidence of paternity, and sent the matter, including the paternity issue, for trial without any suggestion that there was to be further disclosure. Throughout the more than 12-year pendency of this action, defendants had never before demanded disclosure specifically pertaining to the paternity issue, which could have been resolved early on, and their responsibility for this delay is at least equal to plaintiff's. We have considered defendants' other arguments and find them to be without merit.
Concur — Lerner, P. J., Ellerin, Andrias and Saxe, JJ.