You are here: / / BECAUSE DEFENDANT WAS GIVEN EXTRA TIME TO COMPLETE DISCOVERY, THE TIME...

BECAUSE DEFENDANT WAS GIVEN EXTRA TIME TO COMPLETE DISCOVERY, THE TIME TO FILE A MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT WAS EXTENDED AS WELL (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined defendant (Macchia) should have been given an extension of the period to file a summary judgment motion based upon the referee's grant of extra time to complete discovery:

Upon the filing of a note of issue, there are two separate and distinct methods to obtain further disclosure. The first method, pursuant to Uniform Rules for Trial Courts (22 NYCRR) § 202.21(e), provides, in pertinent part, that: “Within 20 days after service of a note of issue and certificate of readiness, any party to the action or special proceeding may move to vacate the note of issue, upon affidavit showing in what respects the case is not ready for trial, and the court may vacate the note of issue if it appears that a material fact in the certificate of readiness is incorrect, or that the certificate of readiness fails to comply with the requirements of this section in some material respect.”

The second method, pursuant to Uniform Rules for Trial Courts (22 NYCRR) § 202.21(d), provides, in pertinent part, that: “Where unusual or unanticipated circumstances develop subsequent to the filing of a note of issue and certificate of readiness which require additional pretrial proceedings to prevent substantial prejudice, the court, upon motion supported by affidavit, may grant permission to conduct such necessary proceedings.”

Here, it appears that Macchia did not comply with either method, but, because depositions of the parties had not yet been conducted, the Court Attorney Referee so-ordered a stipulation which directed that further discovery take place beyond the date that summary judgment motions were to be filed. Given the Court Attorney Referee's implicit consent to the basis for the extension of the time to move for summary judgment, Macchia reasonably believed that the deadline for summary judgment motions would likewise be extended. Thus, under these particular facts and circumstances, we find that Macchia demonstrated good cause for allowing an extension of time to move for summary judgment … . Khan v Macchia, 2018 NY Slip Op 06519, Second Dept 10-3-18

CIVIL PROCEDURE (BECAUSE DEFENDANT WAS GIVEN EXTRA TIME TO COMPLETE DISCOVERY, THE TIME TO FILE A MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT WAS EXTENDED AS WELL (SECOND DEPT))/SUMMARY JUDGMENT (CIVIL PROCEDURE, (BECAUSE DEFENDANT WAS GIVEN EXTRA TIME TO COMPLETE DISCOVERY, THE TIME TO FILE A MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT WAS EXTENDED AS WELL (SECOND DEPT))/DISCOVERY (CIVIL PROCEDURE, BECAUSE DEFENDANT WAS GIVEN EXTRA TIME TO COMPLETE DISCOVERY, THE TIME TO FILE A MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT WAS EXTENDED AS WELL (SECOND DEPT))

You might also like
ALTHOUGH THE TENANT HAD VIOLATED CERTAIN PROVISIONS OF THE LEASE, THE EVICTION PENALTY SHOCKED THE CONSCIENCE AS A MATTER OF LAW (SECOND DEPT).
AFTER STOPPING THE CAR OCCUPIED BY TEENAGERS AND ARRESTING THE DRIVER AND A PASSENGER, THE POLICE RELEASED THE CAR TO DEFENDANT WHO WAS NOT AUTHORIZED TO DRIVE A CAR WITH MORE THAN ONE PASSENGER UNDER 21; THE DEFENDANT DRIVER THEN HAD AN ACCIDENT: THERE IS A QUESTION OF FACT WHETHER THE POLICE BREACHED A SPECIAL DUTY OWED THE INJURED PLAINTIFF (SECOND DEPT). ​
Electronic Documents Constitute “Tangible Personal Property” and Can Therefore Be the Subject of a Conversion Cause of Action
Allegations Supported the Existence of an “Implied Physician-Patient Relationship” Giving Rise to a Duty Owed to Plaintiff by the On-Call Surgeon—The On-Call Surgeon Was Notified of Plaintiff’s Facial Lacerations But Told Hospital Personnel (by Phone) His Services Were Not Required to Treat the Plaintiff—Plaintiff Alleged Suturing by a Physician’s Assistant Resulted in Excess Pain and Scarring
THE BANK IN THIS FORECLOSURE ACTION DID NOT DEMONSTRATE COMPLIANCE WITH THE NOTICE REQUIREMENTS OF RPAPL 1304; I.E., THE NOTICE MUST BE MAILED IN A SEPARATE ENVELOPE WITH NO OTHER MATERIALS, AND THE NOTICE MUST BE SENT SEPARATELY TO EACH BORROWER (SECOND DEPT).
SURGICAL PROCEDURES WERE DEEMED DISCRETE EVENTS WHICH DID NOT ANTICIPATE FURTHER TREATMENT, CONTINUOUS TREATMENT DOCTRINE DID NOT APPLY TO EXTEND THE STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS.
Conclusory Affidavit Insufficient to Meet Burden of Demonstrating Documents Were Privileged Because the Documents Were Prepared Solely In Anticipation of Litigation—Motion for a Protective Order Limiting Discovery Properly Denied
PLAINTIFF WAS A SPECIAL EMPLOYEE OF OWNER OF THE PROPERTY ON WHICH PLAINTIFF WAS INJURED, PLAINTIFF’S RECOVERY RESTRICTED TO WORKERS’ COMPENSATION BENEFITS (SECOND DEPT).

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 © 2025 New York Appellate Digest, Inc.
Site by CurlyHost | Privacy Policy

PEDESTRIAN PLAINTIFF’S EMERGING FROM BETWEEN PARKED CARS AND ATTEMPTING... APPELLANT EXERCISED UNDUE INFLUENCE OVER DECEDENT, SATISFACTION OF MORTGAGE...