You are here: / / PROMPT MOTION TO STRIKE NOTE OF ISSUE AND CERTIFICATE OF READINESS SHOULD...
,

PROMPT MOTION TO STRIKE NOTE OF ISSUE AND CERTIFICATE OF READINESS SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED, DISCOVERY WAS NOT COMPLETE.

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined defendants’ motion to strike the note of issue and certificate of readiness should have been granted on the ground discovery was incomplete:

The Supreme Court should have granted the defendants’ motion to strike the note of issue and certificate of readiness and to compel the plaintiff to appear for an independent medical examination … . “While discovery determinations rest within the sound discretion of the trial court, the Appellate Division is vested with a corresponding power to substitute its own discretion for that of the trial court” … . Under the circumstances of this case, including the defendants’ prompt motion to strike the note of issue and certificate of readiness on the ground that discovery was incomplete, and the plaintiff’s failure to demonstrate any prejudice in opposition, the note of issue and certificate of readiness should be stricken, and the plaintiff compelled to appear for an independent medical examination so that discovery may be completed. Moses v B & E Lorge Family Trust, 2017 NY Slip Op 01349, 2nd Dept 2-22-17

CIVIL PROCEDURE (PROMPT MOTION TO STRIKE NOTE OF ISSUE AND CERTIFICATE OF READINESS SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED, DISCOVERY WAS NOT COMPLETE)/NOTE OF ISSUE (PROMPT MOTION TO STRIKE NOTE OF ISSUE AND CERTIFICATE OF READINESS SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED, DISCOVERY WAS NOT COMPLETE)/CERTIFICATE OF READINESS (PROMPT MOTION TO STRIKE NOTE OF ISSUE AND CERTIFICATE OF READINESS SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED, DISCOVERY WAS NOT COMPLETE)/STRIKE, MOTION TO (PROMPT MOTION TO STRIKE NOTE OF ISSUE AND CERTIFICATE OF READINESS SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED, DISCOVERY WAS NOT COMPLETE)/DISCOVERY (PROMPT MOTION TO STRIKE NOTE OF ISSUE AND CERTIFICATE OF READINESS SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED, DISCOVERY WAS NOT COMPLETE)

You might also like
A PERMANENT INJUNCTION IS NOT APPROPRIATE WHERE PLAINTIFFS DO NOT ALLEGE ANY NONECONOMIC DAMAGES (SECOND DEPT).
AN APPELLATE COURT MAY CONSIDER A SUPPRESSION RULING GROUNDED ON A THEORY NOT RELIED UPON OR ARGUED BY THE PARTIES AS LONG AS THE RULING IS BASED UPON THE EVIDENCE AND IS FULLY LAID OUT AND EXPLAINED BY THE MOTION COURT; HERE THE AUTOMOBILE EXCEPTION TO THE WARRANT REQUIREMENT DID NOT APPLY AND THE EVIDENCE SEIZED FROM DEFENDANT’S VEHICLE SHOULD HAVE BEEN SUPPRESSED (SECOND DEPT). ​
ALTHOUGH THE READY-FOR-TRIAL ANNOUNCEMENT WAS TIMELY, IT WAS ILLUSORY BECAUSE THE CERTIFICATE OF COMPLIANCE WITH DISCOVERY OBLIGATIONS HAD NOT BEEN FILED; INDICTMENT PROPERLY DISMISSED (SECOND DEPT).
SELLER’S ACTION FOR SPECIFIC PERFORMANCE OF A REAL ESTATE PURCHASE AGREEMENT PROPERLY DISMISSED; THE CONTRACT WAS SUBJECT TO ATTORNEY APPROVAL BUT NO DEADLINE FOR ATTORNEY-APPROVAL WAS SET BY THE AGREEMENT; DEFENDANTS’ COUNSEL INFORMED PLAINTIFF’S COUNSEL THAT DEFENDANTS DID NOT WISH TO GO FORWARD WITH THE PURCHASE EITHER SEVEN OR NINE DAYS AFTER THE CONTRACT WAS EXECUTED, WHICH WAS DEEMED A REASONABLE TIME (SECOND DEPT).
DEFENDANT’S KIDNAPPING CONVICTIONS VACATED PURSUANT TO THE DOCTRINE OF MERGER, DEFENDANT WAS ALSO CONVICTED OF MURDER, BURGLARY AND ROBBERY, APPEAL CONSIDERED IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE (SECOND DEPT).
SCHOOL-GROUNDS-PROXIMITY-RESIDENCE PROHIBITION APPLIED TO PETITIONER, A LEVEL THREE SEX OFFENDER, EVEN THOUGH THE OFFENSE FOR WHICH HE WAS BEING PAROLED WAS BURGLARY; SECOND DEPARTMENT DISAGREED WITH THE RESOLUTION OF THIS ISSUE BY THE THIRD AND FOURTH DEPARTMENTS; APPEAL WAS HEARD AS AN EXCEPTION TO THE MOOTNESS DOCTRINE (SECOND DEPT).
CVS, A DEFENDANT IN THIS MEDICAL MALPRACTICE ACTION, HAD BEEN AWARDED SUMMARY JUDGMENT WHICH IS THE EQUIVALENT OF JUDGMENT AFTER TRIAL; DEFENDANT DOCTORS SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN ALLOWED TO PRESENT EVIDENCE THAT CVS’S PROVIDING PLAINTIFF’S DECEDENT WITH THE WRONG DOSAGE OF MEDICINE MAY HAVE CONTRIBUTED TO HIS DEATH (SECOND DEPT).
INSUFFICIENT EVIDENCE DEFENDANT COMMITTED BURGLARY; DEFENDANT, THROUGH AN UNLOCKED DOOR, ENTERED A VESTIBULE THAT WAS NOT RESTRICTED TO USE BY TENANTS.

Categories

Sign Up for the Mailing List to Be Notified When the Site Is Updated.

  • This field is for validation purposes and should be left unchanged.

Copyright © 2026 New York Appellate Digest, Inc.
Site by CurlyHost | Privacy Policy

PLAINTIFFS’ EXPERTS RAISED ISSUES OF FACT REQUIRING DENIAL OF DEFENDANTS’... EXCLUDING A REPRESENTATIVE OF THE DEFENDANT ELEVATOR COMPANY FROM THE COURTROOM...