Conford Co. v. Fordham Concourse Realty Associates

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Conford Co. v. Fordham Concourse Realty Associates

119 A.D.2d 526, 501 N.Y.S.2d 43, 1986 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 55460

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

DecidedApril 22, 1986

StatusPublished

Cited by4 cases

This text of 119 A.D.2d 526 (Conford Co. v. Fordham Concourse Realty Associates) 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

Conford Co. v. Fordham Concourse Realty Associates, 119 A.D.2d 526, 501 N.Y.S.2d 43, 1986 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 55460 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1986).

Pincite

Opinion

— Order of the Supreme Court, New York County (Amos E. Bowman, J.), entered on October 15, 1985, which denied plaintiff’s motion for a preliminary injunction, is affirmed, without costs or disbursements.

Order of the Supreme Court, New York County (Louis Grossman, J.), entered on or about December 5, 1985, which denied plaintiff’s motion to vacate the note of issue filed by defendant, is reversed, on the law and the facts, and the motion granted, without costs or disbursements.

During the oral arguments held in connection with this matter, defendant landlord stated that the parties were in the process of completing discovery in the Supreme Court which, according to defendant, should resolve the issue in dispute herein. Since defendant has indicated that it favors a determination by the Supreme Court, injunctive relief (Yellowstone) is not required.

Special Term should have granted plaintiff’s motion for an order striking defendant’s note of issue. The note of issue, which was filed before the case was, in fact, ready for trial, was based upon an erroneous statement of readiness when it wrongly asserted that plaintiff had waived discovery. Moreover, not only had discovery not yet transpired, but defendant had, at the time, apparently not even served an answer to plaintiff’s verified complaint. Concur — Sandler, J. P., Ross, Milonas, Rosenberger and Ellerin, JJ.

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

— Order of the Supreme Court, New York County (Amos E. Bowman, J.), entered on October 15, 1985, which denied plaintiff’s motion for a preliminary injunction, is affirmed, without costs or disbursements.

Order of the Supreme Court, New York County (Louis Grossman, J.), entered on or about December 5, 1985, which denied plaintiff’s motion to vacate the note of issue filed by defendant, is reversed, on the law and the facts, and the motion granted, without costs or disbursements.

During the oral arguments held in connection with this matter, defendant landlord stated that the parties were in the process of completing discovery in the Supreme Court which, according to defendant, should resolve the issue in dispute herein. Since defendant has indicated that it favors a determination by the Supreme Court, injunctive relief (Yellowstone) is not required.

Special Term should have granted plaintiff’s motion for an order striking defendant’s note of issue. The note of issue, which was filed before the case was, in fact, ready for trial, was based upon an erroneous statement of readiness when it wrongly asserted that plaintiff had waived discovery. Moreover, not only had discovery not yet transpired, but defendant had, at the time, apparently not even served an answer to plaintiff’s verified complaint. Concur — Sandler, J. P., Ross, Milonas, Rosenberger and Ellerin, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

119 A.D.2d 526, 501 N.Y.S.2d 43, 1986 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 55460, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/conford-co-v-fordham-concourse-realty-associates-nyappdiv-1986.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack