You are here: / / THE SUPREME COURT’S PART RULES REQUIRED PLAINTIFF TO FIRST CONFERENCE...
,

THE SUPREME COURT’S PART RULES REQUIRED PLAINTIFF TO FIRST CONFERENCE THE MATTER BEFORE MOVING TO COMPEL DEFENDANTS TO COMPLY WITH DISCOVERY DEMANDS; THE FAILURE TO CONFERENCE THE MATTER, HOWEVER, IS NOT A VALID GROUND FOR DENYING THE MOTION (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined plaintiff’s motion to strike defendants’ answer or compel compliance with discovery demands should not have been denied on the ground plaintiff failed to first conference the matter as required by the court’s Part Rules:

… Supreme Court improvidently exercised its discretion in denying the motion on the ground that plaintiff failed to first conference the matter with the court in accordance with its Part Rules. The court may not condition the making of a motion on prior judicial approval … . Reyes v City of New York, 2025 NY Slip Op 03545, First Dept 6-10-25

Practice Point: Here plaintiff’s failure to comply with Supreme Court’s Part Rule requiring a conference before moving to compel discovery was not a valid ground for denying the motion. A court may not condition the making of a motion on prior judicial approval.

 

You might also like
NO QUESTION OF FACT RAISED ABOUT AN ALLEGED ORAL WAIVER OF A LEASE PROVISION, CRITERIA EXLAINED.
Court Must Consider Whether Both Parties, Not Only the Bank, Have Negotiated in Good Faith in the Mandatory Pre-Foreclosure Settlement Conferences (Re: Possible Modification of the Terms of a Mortgage Subject to Foreclosure)—Under the Totality of the Circumstances, Supreme Court’s Finding that the Bank Did Not Negotiate in Good Faith Was Not Supported
THE HARASSMENT-RELATED SPEECH PROHIBITIONS IN THE ORDER OF PROTECTION DID NOT VIOLATE THE FIRST AMENDMENT BUT THE PROVISION PROHIBITING RESPONDENT FROM DISCSUSSING THE PETITIONER OR THE FAMILY OFFENSE PROCEEDING WAS STRUCK FROM THE ORDER OF PROTECTION AS UNNECESSARY (FIRST DEPT).
ALTHOUGH PLAINTIFF WAS NOT AT THE CONSTRUCTION SITE, HE WAS INJURED IN A TEMPORARY FACILITY DOING WORK FOR THE CONSTRUCTION SITE, DEFENDANTS’ MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED.
Criteria for Domicile Explained
PLAINTIFF WAS INJURED WHEN A STEP BROKE AS HE STEPPED ON IT; THE LABOR LAW 200 AND NEGLIGENCE CAUSES OF ACTION SHOULD HAVE BEEN DISMISSED BECAUSE THERE WAS NO SIGN THE STEP WAS DEFECTIVE; HOWEVER, THE LABOR LAW 241(6) CAUSE OF ACTION, BASED ON AN INDUSTRIAL CODE PROVISION REQUIRING THAT A STAIRCASE BE “FREE OF DEFECTS,” PROPERLY SURVIVED SUMMARY JUDGMENT (FIRST DEPT).
PLAINTIFF’S BREACH-OF-AN-EMPLOYMENT-CONTRACT ACTION SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN DISMISSED, DESPITE THE FACT THAT DEFENDANT NEVER SIGNED IT (FIRST DEPT).
CIVIL PROCEDURE A Stay Which Was to Last “45 Days from the Service” of an Order Never Expired Because the Order Was Never Served/Argument that the Stay Never Started Because the Order Was Not Served Rejected

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

ALL STATEMENTS MADE BY DEFENDANT AFTER HE RESPONDED “NO SIR.” WHEN... DEFENDANT DINER’S SECURITY GUARD KNOCKED PLAINTIFF TO THE GROUND AND CHOKED...