Carte v. Segall

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Carte v. Segall

134 A.D.2d 396, 520 N.Y.S.2d 943, 1987 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 50587

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

DecidedNovember 16, 1987

StatusPublished

Cited by9 cases

This text of 134 A.D.2d 396 (Carte v. Segall) 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

Carte v. Segall, 134 A.D.2d 396, 520 N.Y.S.2d 943, 1987 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 50587 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1987).

Pincite

Opinion

In a medical malpractice action to recover damages for personal injuries, etc., the defendant Segall appeals, as limited by his brief, from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Bellard, J.), dated September 16, 1986, as denied his motion for an order vacating the plaintiffs’ note of issue and certificate of readiness and striking the action from the Trial Calendar.

Ordered that the order is reversed insofar as appealed from, without costs or disbursements, the motion is granted, and the action is stricken from the Trial Calendar pending further discovery.

As the plaintiffs concede, the court of first instance erroneously refused to strike the action from the calendar pending further discovery, in light of the extensive discovery which has yet to be completed, of which the plaintiffs were clearly cognizant when they filed the certificate of readiness falsely declaring that preliminary proceedings had been either completed or waived (see, Recon Car Corp. v Chrysler Corp., 89 AD2d 586; 22 NYCRR 202.21 [b], [c]).

[397]*397Contrary to the appellant’s contention, however, the plaintiffs have not waived their right to further discovery. If an action is stricken from the calendar, the parties will be returned "to their original pre-note of issue discovery status” (3A Weinstein-Korn-Miller, NY Civ Prac tf 3106.05a). Mangano, J. P., Thompson, Lawrence and Kunzeman, JJ., concur.

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

In a medical malpractice action to recover damages for personal injuries, etc., the defendant Segall appeals, as limited by his brief, from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Bellard, J.), dated September 16, 1986, as denied his motion for an order vacating the plaintiffs’ note of issue and certificate of readiness and striking the action from the Trial Calendar.

Ordered that the order is reversed insofar as appealed from, without costs or disbursements, the motion is granted, and the action is stricken from the Trial Calendar pending further discovery.

As the plaintiffs concede, the court of first instance erroneously refused to strike the action from the calendar pending further discovery, in light of the extensive discovery which has yet to be completed, of which the plaintiffs were clearly cognizant when they filed the certificate of readiness falsely declaring that preliminary proceedings had been either completed or waived (see, Recon Car Corp. v Chrysler Corp., 89 AD2d 586; 22 NYCRR 202.21 [b], [c]).

[397]*397Contrary to the appellant’s contention, however, the plaintiffs have not waived their right to further discovery. If an action is stricken from the calendar, the parties will be returned "to their original pre-note of issue discovery status” (3A Weinstein-Korn-Miller, NY Civ Prac tf 3106.05a). Mangano, J. P., Thompson, Lawrence and Kunzeman, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

134 A.D.2d 396, 520 N.Y.S.2d 943, 1987 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 50587, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/carte-v-segall-nyappdiv-1987.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack