Jia Wang v. Chih Shien Kang

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Jia Wang v. Chih Shien Kang

139 A.D.3d 548, 30 N.Y.S.3d 559

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

DecidedMay 19, 2016

Docket1213 104059/11

StatusPublished

This text of 139 A.D.3d 548 (Jia Wang v. Chih Shien Kang) 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

Jia Wang v. Chih Shien Kang, 139 A.D.3d 548, 30 N.Y.S.3d 559 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2016).

Pincite

Opinion

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Richard Braun, J.), entered May 1, 2015, which, insofar as appealed from, denied plaintiffs motion to vacate the note of issue or, in the alternative, for a jury trial, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

Plaintiff brought this motion to vacate the note of issue on the basis that the case was not ready for trial some 15 months after the note of issue was filed, and, thus, the motion was untimely (see Schroeder v IESI NY Corp., 24 AD3d 180, 181 [1st Dept 2005]). Furthermore, plaintiff’s speculative and unsubstantiated claims of defendants’ forgery, spoliation, and obstructing discovery fail to meet the “stringent” standard of showing “unusual and unanticipated circumstances” subsequent to the filing of the note of issue that would otherwise justify granting the relief sought (id. [internal quotation marks omitted]).

Plaintiff failed to file a jury demand within 15 days of the filing of the note of issue, and has not provided an excuse for her failure to do so. As a result, she waived any right she may have had to a jury trial (see CPLR 4102 [a]; Med Part v Kingshridge Hgts. Care Ctr., Inc., 22 AD3d 260, 261 [1st Dept 2005]).

We have considered plaintiff’s remaining contentions, and find them unavailing.

Concur — Tom, J.P., Saxe, Richter, Gische and Webber, JJ.

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

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Richard Braun, J.), entered May 1, 2015, which, insofar as appealed from, denied plaintiffs motion to vacate the note of issue or, in the alternative, for a jury trial, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

Plaintiff brought this motion to vacate the note of issue on the basis that the case was not ready for trial some 15 months after the note of issue was filed, and, thus, the motion was untimely (see Schroeder v IESI NY Corp., 24 AD3d 180, 181 [1st Dept 2005]). Furthermore, plaintiff’s speculative and unsubstantiated claims of defendants’ forgery, spoliation, and obstructing discovery fail to meet the “stringent” standard of showing “unusual and unanticipated circumstances” subsequent to the filing of the note of issue that would otherwise justify granting the relief sought (id. [internal quotation marks omitted]).

Plaintiff failed to file a jury demand within 15 days of the filing of the note of issue, and has not provided an excuse for her failure to do so. As a result, she waived any right she may have had to a jury trial (see CPLR 4102 [a]; Med Part v Kingshridge Hgts. Care Ctr., Inc., 22 AD3d 260, 261 [1st Dept 2005]).

We have considered plaintiff’s remaining contentions, and find them unavailing.

Concur — Tom, J.P., Saxe, Richter, Gische and Webber, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

139 A.D.3d 548, 30 N.Y.S.3d 559, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/jia-wang-v-chih-shien-kang-nyappdiv-2016.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack