Opinion
11379N Index 158475/15
04-09-2020
Denise RUIZ, Plaintiff–Respondent, v. PARK GRAMERCY OWNERS CORP., et al., Defendants–Appellants.
Wilson Elser Moskowitz Edelman & Dicker LLP, White Plains (Joseph A.H. McGovern of counsel), for appellants. Mitchell Dranow, Sea Cliff, for respondent.
Wilson Elser Moskowitz Edelman & Dicker LLP, White Plains (Joseph A.H. McGovern of counsel), for appellants.
Mitchell Dranow, Sea Cliff, for respondent.
Friedman, J.P., Kapnick, Webber, Gonza´lez, JJ.
Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Shlomo Hagler, J.), entered April 23, 2019, which, inter alia, denied defendants' motion to vacate the note of issue, unanimously reversed, on the law and the facts, without costs, and the motion granted.
"[A] note of issue should be vacated when [it] is based upon a certificate of readiness which contains an erroneous fact, such as that discovery has been completed" ( Savino v. Lewittes , 160 A.D.2d 176, 177, 553 N.Y.S.2d 146 [1st Dept. 1990] ; see Pua v. Lam , 155 A.D.3d 487, 63 N.Y.S.3d 859 [1st Dept. 2017] ; 22 NYCRR 202.21 [e] ). Here, the motion to vacate the note of issue should have been granted since plaintiff had not provided authorizations allowing her out-of-state medical providers to release her medical records to defendants, as well as certain receipts for expenses incurred as a result of her injuries, before filing the note of issue and certificate of readiness.