10 Park Square Associates, Inc. v. Travelers

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

10 Park Square Associates, Inc. v. Travelers

266 A.D.2d 859, 698 N.Y.S.2d 196, 1999 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 11689

CourtAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York

DecidedNovember 12, 1999

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 266 A.D.2d 859 (10 Park Square Associates, Inc. v. Travelers) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

10 Park Square Associates, Inc. v. Travelers, 266 A.D.2d 859, 698 N.Y.S.2d 196, 1999 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 11689 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1999).

Pincite

Opinion

—Order unanimously reversed on the law without costs and motion denied. Memorandum: In March 1989 a fire destroyed property owned by plaintiffs. When defendant insurer denied their claim for damages arising from the loss, plaintiffs commenced this action. A note of issue and statement of readiness were filed on September 8, 1993, and a jury thereafter found in favor of defendant. We reversed the judgment and granted a new trial (10 Park Sq. Assocs. v The Travelers, 244 AD2d 870). In preparation for the new trial, 10 Park Square Associates, Inc. (plaintiff) moved to compel discovery.

Supreme Court erred in granting plaintiff’s motion. “Absent a timely motion to strike a note of issue or statement of readiness, a party is foreclosed from further discovery unless there is a demonstration of special, unusual or extraordinary circumstances” (Stanovick v Donner-Hanna Coke Corp., 116 AD2d 1000; see, Gray v Crouse-Irving Mem. Hosp., 107 AD2d 1038, 1039). A lack of diligence in conducting discovery does not constitute an extraordinary circumstance (see, Laudico v Sears, Roebuck & Co., 125 AD2d 960, 961), nor does remittal for a new trial on the ground that the judgment was unsupported by adequate proof (see, S.A.B. Enters. v Village of Athens, 178 AD2d 820, 821). (Appeal from Order of Supreme Court, Erie County, Fahey, J. — Discovery.) Present — Pine, J. P., Wisner, Pigott, Jr., Hurlbutt and Scudder, JJ.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

—Order unanimously reversed on the law without costs and motion denied. Memorandum: In March 1989 a fire destroyed property owned by plaintiffs. When defendant insurer denied their claim for damages arising from the loss, plaintiffs commenced this action. A note of issue and statement of readiness were filed on September 8, 1993, and a jury thereafter found in favor of defendant. We reversed the judgment and granted a new trial (10 Park Sq. Assocs. v The Travelers, 244 AD2d 870). In preparation for the new trial, 10 Park Square Associates, Inc. (plaintiff) moved to compel discovery.

Supreme Court erred in granting plaintiff’s motion. “Absent a timely motion to strike a note of issue or statement of readiness, a party is foreclosed from further discovery unless there is a demonstration of special, unusual or extraordinary circumstances” (Stanovick v Donner-Hanna Coke Corp., 116 AD2d 1000; see, Gray v Crouse-Irving Mem. Hosp., 107 AD2d 1038, 1039). A lack of diligence in conducting discovery does not constitute an extraordinary circumstance (see, Laudico v Sears, Roebuck & Co., 125 AD2d 960, 961), nor does remittal for a new trial on the ground that the judgment was unsupported by adequate proof (see, S.A.B. Enters. v Village of Athens, 178 AD2d 820, 821). (Appeal from Order of Supreme Court, Erie County, Fahey, J. — Discovery.) Present — Pine, J. P., Wisner, Pigott, Jr., Hurlbutt and Scudder, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

266 A.D.2d 859, 698 N.Y.S.2d 196, 1999 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 11689, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/10-park-square-associates-inc-v-travelers-nyappdiv-1999.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack