Giglio v. Carucci

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Giglio v. Carucci

116 A.D.2d 1040, 498 N.Y.S.2d 593, 1986 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 51838

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

DecidedJanuary 24, 1986

StatusPublished

Cited by3 cases

This text of 116 A.D.2d 1040 (Giglio v. Carucci) 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

Giglio v. Carucci, 116 A.D.2d 1040, 498 N.Y.S.2d 593, 1986 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 51838 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1986).

Pincite

Opinion

Order unanimously reversed, on the law, without costs, and motion denied. Memorandum: By filing the note of issue and statement of readiness, plaintiff waived her right to further discovery (Gray v Crouse-Irving Mem. Hosp., 107 AD2d 1038, 1039; Riggle v Buffalo Gen. Hosp., 52 AD2d 751, 752). "Only where there are present 'special, unusual or extraordinary circumstances, spelled out factually,’ has Special Term discretion to depart from the rule which forecloses discovery proceedings after the statement of readiness has been filed” (Niagara Falls Urban Renewal Agency v Pomeroy Real Estate Corp., 74 AD2d 734, appeal dismissed 50 NY2d 842; Giddens v Moultrie, 66 AD2d 993; Doll v Kleinklaus, 66 AD2d 1003, 1004). Plaintiff’s lack of diligence in pursuing her lawsuit does [1041]*1041not constitute a "special, unusual, or extraordinary circumstance” which would justify her request for discretionary relief (Doll v Kleinklaus, supra, p 1004). (Appeal from order of Supreme Court, Oneida County, Inglehart, J.—discovery and inspection.) Present—Dillon, P. J., Doerr, Green, O’Donnell and Pine, JJ.

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

Order unanimously reversed, on the law, without costs, and motion denied. Memorandum: By filing the note of issue and statement of readiness, plaintiff waived her right to further discovery (Gray v Crouse-Irving Mem. Hosp., 107 AD2d 1038, 1039; Riggle v Buffalo Gen. Hosp., 52 AD2d 751, 752). "Only where there are present 'special, unusual or extraordinary circumstances, spelled out factually,’ has Special Term discretion to depart from the rule which forecloses discovery proceedings after the statement of readiness has been filed” (Niagara Falls Urban Renewal Agency v Pomeroy Real Estate Corp., 74 AD2d 734, appeal dismissed 50 NY2d 842; Giddens v Moultrie, 66 AD2d 993; Doll v Kleinklaus, 66 AD2d 1003, 1004). Plaintiff’s lack of diligence in pursuing her lawsuit does [1041]*1041not constitute a "special, unusual, or extraordinary circumstance” which would justify her request for discretionary relief (Doll v Kleinklaus, supra, p 1004). (Appeal from order of Supreme Court, Oneida County, Inglehart, J.—discovery and inspection.) Present—Dillon, P. J., Doerr, Green, O’Donnell and Pine, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

116 A.D.2d 1040, 498 N.Y.S.2d 593, 1986 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 51838, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/giglio-v-carucci-nyappdiv-1986.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack