Opinion
January 29, 1996
Appeal from the Supreme Court, Richmond County (Leone, J.).
Ordered that the order is affirmed insofar as appealed from, with costs.
A party who seeks discovery after the filing of a note of issue must move for vacatur of the note of issue within 20 days after service of the note of issue ( see, 22 NYCRR 202.21 [e]; Fox Co. v Sleicher, 186 A.D.2d 537, 538; Keane v Ranbar Packing, 121 A.D.2d 601). In addition, the movant must demonstrate that unusual and unanticipated circumstances developed subsequent to the filing of the note of issue and certificate of readiness which required pretrial proceedings to prevent substantial prejudice ( see, 22 NYCRR 202.21; Bonavita v Crudo, 124 A.D.2d 619, 620; Keane v Ranbar Packing, supra; Fox Co. v Sleicher, supra). Here, the defendants failed to comply with either requirement. The defendants' motion was made after they were served with the plaintiff's verified bill of particulars, and the plaintiff does not allege new or additional injuries or that the nature and extent of her existing injuries had changed dramatically ( see, Pallotta v West Bend Co., 166 A.D.2d 637, 639; Luboff v Temple Israel, 109 A.D.2d 730). Moreover, the defendants failed to show why the information obtained from their prior examination of the plaintiff and from other discovery was inadequate ( see, Gomez v Long Is. R.R., 202 A.D.2d 633). Mangano, P.J., Miller, Copertino, Santucci and Hart, JJ., concur.