From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Sampayo v. McCadney

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, First Department
Jan 13, 1994
200 A.D.2d 456 (N.Y. App. Div. 1994)

Opinion

January 13, 1994

Appeal from the Supreme Court, Bronx County (Douglas McKeon, J.).


Since the three-month period between the preliminary conference order and plaintiffs' filing of their note of issue afforded defendants a reasonable opportunity to pursue disclosure in addition to that which had been ordered, the court did not abuse its discretion in ordering plaintiffs to provide outstanding items in lieu of vacating the note of issue, denying defendants leave to conduct examinations before trial of nonparty witnesses and a physical examination they had never before requested, and refusing to revive a demand for the examination before trial of the injured plaintiff's spouse when defendants had not pursued her deposition before the preliminary conference nor included it in the preliminary conference order. In short, defendants failed to show "`"special, unusual or extraordinary circumstances"'" (Goldsmith v. Howmedica, Inc., 158 A.D.2d 335, 336).

Concur — Carro, J.P., Rosenberger, Ellerin and Kupferman, JJ.


Summaries of

Sampayo v. McCadney

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, First Department
Jan 13, 1994
200 A.D.2d 456 (N.Y. App. Div. 1994)
Case details for

Sampayo v. McCadney

Case Details

Full title:GEORGE SAMPAYO et al., Respondents, v. JOHN McCADNEY et al., Appellants

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

Date published: Jan 13, 1994

Citations

200 A.D.2d 456 (N.Y. App. Div. 1994)
608 N.Y.S.2d 812

Citing Cases

Sanders v. Bass

This defendant failed to do, offering nothing but conjecture that one of the fans malfunctioned, while…