Gould v. Marone
This text of 197 A.D.2d 862 (Gould v. Marone) 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.
Opinion
—Order unanimously reversed on the law with costs and motion denied. Memorandum: This Court has repeatedly stated that, absent special, unusual or extraordinary circumstances spelled out factually, the motion court lacks discretion to permit further discovery after the note of issue and statement of readiness have been filed (see, e.g., Laudico v Sears, Roebuck & Co., 125 AD2d 960, 961; Gray v Crouse-Irving Mem. Hosp., 107 AD2d 1038, 1039-1040; Niagara Falls Urban Renewal Agency v Pomeroy Real Estate Corp., 74 AD2d 734, appeal dismissed 50 NY2d 842). The record is devoid of evidence of special or unusual circumstances, and Supreme Court should have denied defendant’s untimely request for further discovery. (Appeal from Order of Supreme Court, Erie County, Wolfgang, J.—Discovery.) Present—Den-man, P. J., Callahan, Balio, Boomer and Boehm, JJ.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Related
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
197 A.D.2d 862, 604 N.Y.S.2d 867, 1993 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 9238, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/gould-v-marone-nyappdiv-1993.