Dhaliwal v. Long Boat Taxi, Inc.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Dhaliwal v. Long Boat Taxi, Inc.

305 A.D.2d 449, 758 N.Y.S.2d 819

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

DecidedMay 12, 2003

StatusPublished

Cited by8 cases

This text of 305 A.D.2d 449 (Dhaliwal v. Long Boat Taxi, Inc.) 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

Dhaliwal v. Long Boat Taxi, Inc., 305 A.D.2d 449, 758 N.Y.S.2d 819 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2003).

Pincite

Opinion

—In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, the plaintiff appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Weiss, J.), dated September 1, 2000, which denied her motion for an extension of time in which to complete discovery and file a note of issue.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.

The Supreme Court’s compliance conference order dated May 9, 2000, which served as the equivalent of a 90-day notice pursuant to CPLR 3216 (see Goldberg v Tunstall, 295 AD2d 315 [2002]; Vento v Bargain Bilge W., 292 AD2d 596 [2002]; Seletsky v St. Francis Hosp., 263 AD2d 452, 453 [1999]), required the plaintiff either to file a note of issue by August 8, 2000, or move for an extension of time within which to comply pursuant to CPLR 2004. The Supreme Court properly denied the plaintiffs motion to extend the time to complete discovery and file a note of issue, given the almost four-year delay in conducting any discovery from the time issue was joined until the plaintiffs motion, the plaintiffs failure to give any reason for the delay, and the prejudice to the defendants (see Carota v Massapequa Union Free School Dist., 272 AD2d 428 [2000]; Versatile Furniture Prods. v 32-8 Maujer Realty, 97 AD2d 463 [1983]; cf. Tewari v Tsoutsouras, 75 NY2d 1, 12 [1989]). Altman, J.P., Krausman, Goldstein, H. Miller and Crane, JJ., concur.

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

—In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, the plaintiff appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Weiss, J.), dated September 1, 2000, which denied her motion for an extension of time in which to complete discovery and file a note of issue.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.

The Supreme Court’s compliance conference order dated May 9, 2000, which served as the equivalent of a 90-day notice pursuant to CPLR 3216 (see Goldberg v Tunstall, 295 AD2d 315 [2002]; Vento v Bargain Bilge W., 292 AD2d 596 [2002]; Seletsky v St. Francis Hosp., 263 AD2d 452, 453 [1999]), required the plaintiff either to file a note of issue by August 8, 2000, or move for an extension of time within which to comply pursuant to CPLR 2004. The Supreme Court properly denied the plaintiffs motion to extend the time to complete discovery and file a note of issue, given the almost four-year delay in conducting any discovery from the time issue was joined until the plaintiffs motion, the plaintiffs failure to give any reason for the delay, and the prejudice to the defendants (see Carota v Massapequa Union Free School Dist., 272 AD2d 428 [2000]; Versatile Furniture Prods. v 32-8 Maujer Realty, 97 AD2d 463 [1983]; cf. Tewari v Tsoutsouras, 75 NY2d 1, 12 [1989]). Altman, J.P., Krausman, Goldstein, H. Miller and Crane, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

305 A.D.2d 449, 758 N.Y.S.2d 819, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/dhaliwal-v-long-boat-taxi-inc-nyappdiv-2003.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack