Briarpatch Limited, L.P. v. Briarpatch Film Corp.
This text of 68 A.D.3d 520 (Briarpatch Limited, L.P. v. Briarpatch Film Corp.) 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.
Opinion
The Rules of the Commercial Division of the Supreme Court (22 NYCRR 202.70 [g]) rule 24 provide for a premotion conference to be held in nondiscovery disputes. The motion court’s part rule states that “[discovery disputes should first be addressed through a court conference prior to the filing of a motion.” Both rules further provide that a party’s failure to comply may result in the motion being held in abeyance until the court has the opportunity to conference the matter. Neither side requested a premotion conference prior to filing the motion and the cross motion. Based on this procedural failure, the court marked both the motion and the cross motion off calendar with leave to renew after plaintiffs’ compliance with the rules.
The court did not improvidently exercise its discretion by refusing to transfer this case to Justice Bransten. The action before Justice Bransten (Briarpatch Ltd., L.P. v Geisler, index No. 603820/99) has no active defendants, and the instant case has been before the current Justice since 2007. Concur— Gonzalez, P.J., Tom, Andrias, Nardelli and Richter, JJ.
Although the court’s order does not specifically reference the cross motion, it is apparent that the order covered both the motion and the cross motion.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Related
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
68 A.D.3d 520, 891 N.Y.2d 352, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/briarpatch-limited-lp-v-briarpatch-film-corp-nyappdiv-2009.