Drapaniotis v. 36-08 33rd Street Corp.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Drapaniotis v. 36-08 33rd Street Corp.

288 A.D.2d 254, 732 N.Y.S.2d 583, 2001 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 10939

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

DecidedNovember 13, 2001

StatusPublished

Cited by9 cases

This text of 288 A.D.2d 254 (Drapaniotis v. 36-08 33rd Street 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.

Bluebook

Drapaniotis v. 36-08 33rd Street Corp., 288 A.D.2d 254, 732 N.Y.S.2d 583, 2001 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 10939 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2001).

Pincite

Opinion

—In an action, inter alia, to recover damages for wrongful eviction, the defendants appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Glover, J.), dated January 24, 2001, which, in effect, denied that branch of their motion which was to vacate the plaintiff’s note of issue and directed that the parties submit to examinations before trial on March 28, 2001.

Ordered that the order is modified, on the law, by deleting the provision thereof which, in effect, denied that branch of the motion which was to vacate the plaintiff’s note of issue, and substituting therefor a provision granting that branch of the motion; as so modified, the order is affirmed, with costs to the appellants.

A note of issue should be vacated when it is based upon a certificate of readiness that contains erroneous facts, such as that discovery has been completed (see, Garofalo v Mercy Hosp., 271 AD2d 642; Cromer v Yellen, 268 AD2d 381; Club Italia v Italian Fashion Trading, 268 AD2d 219). Here, the parties have, in effect, conceded that discovery in this matter has not been completed. Thus, the note of issue should be vacated. Bracken, P. J., Krausman, Luciano, Smith and Adams, JJ., concur.

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

—In an action, inter alia, to recover damages for wrongful eviction, the defendants appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Glover, J.), dated January 24, 2001, which, in effect, denied that branch of their motion which was to vacate the plaintiff’s note of issue and directed that the parties submit to examinations before trial on March 28, 2001.

Ordered that the order is modified, on the law, by deleting the provision thereof which, in effect, denied that branch of the motion which was to vacate the plaintiff’s note of issue, and substituting therefor a provision granting that branch of the motion; as so modified, the order is affirmed, with costs to the appellants.

A note of issue should be vacated when it is based upon a certificate of readiness that contains erroneous facts, such as that discovery has been completed (see, Garofalo v Mercy Hosp., 271 AD2d 642; Cromer v Yellen, 268 AD2d 381; Club Italia v Italian Fashion Trading, 268 AD2d 219). Here, the parties have, in effect, conceded that discovery in this matter has not been completed. Thus, the note of issue should be vacated. Bracken, P. J., Krausman, Luciano, Smith and Adams, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

288 A.D.2d 254, 732 N.Y.S.2d 583, 2001 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 10939, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/drapaniotis-v-36-08-33rd-street-corp-nyappdiv-2001.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack