Laudisio v. Diamond D Construction Corp.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Laudisio v. Diamond D Construction Corp.

281 A.D.2d 942, 722 N.Y.S.2d 207, 2001 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 2715

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

DecidedMarch 21, 2001

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 281 A.D.2d 942 (Laudisio v. Diamond D Construction 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

Laudisio v. Diamond D Construction Corp., 281 A.D.2d 942, 722 N.Y.S.2d 207, 2001 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 2715 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2001).

Pincite

Opinion

Order insofar as appealed from unanimously reversed on the law without costa and cross motion denied. Memorandum: Defendant contends that Supreme Court erred in granting the alternative request in plaintiffs’ cross motion for an order compelling further discovery on the issue of the workers’ compensation defense asserted by defendant. We agree. Plaintiffs commenced this action in June 1992, and defendant raised the workers’ compensation issue as an affirmative defense in its answer. Plaintiffs filed the note of issue and statement of readiness in September 1995, more than four years before their instant cross motion. “[A]bsent 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” (Gould v Marone, 197 AD2d 862; see, 10 Park Sq. Assocs. v The Travelers, 266 AD2d 859; Melanson v Caggiano, 251 AD2d 1059). Plaintiffs failed to explain their failure to seek such discovery before the filing of the note of issue (see, Audiovox Corp. v Benyamini, 265 AD2d 135, 140). (Appeal from Order of Supreme Court, Erie County, Mahoney, J. — Discovery.) Present — Hayes, J. P., Wisner, Scudder, Kehoe and Burns, JJ.

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

Order insofar as appealed from unanimously reversed on the law without costa and cross motion denied. Memorandum: Defendant contends that Supreme Court erred in granting the alternative request in plaintiffs’ cross motion for an order compelling further discovery on the issue of the workers’ compensation defense asserted by defendant. We agree. Plaintiffs commenced this action in June 1992, and defendant raised the workers’ compensation issue as an affirmative defense in its answer. Plaintiffs filed the note of issue and statement of readiness in September 1995, more than four years before their instant cross motion. “[A]bsent 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” (Gould v Marone, 197 AD2d 862; see, 10 Park Sq. Assocs. v The Travelers, 266 AD2d 859; Melanson v Caggiano, 251 AD2d 1059). Plaintiffs failed to explain their failure to seek such discovery before the filing of the note of issue (see, Audiovox Corp. v Benyamini, 265 AD2d 135, 140). (Appeal from Order of Supreme Court, Erie County, Mahoney, J. — Discovery.) Present — Hayes, J. P., Wisner, Scudder, Kehoe and Burns, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

281 A.D.2d 942, 722 N.Y.S.2d 207, 2001 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 2715, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/laudisio-v-diamond-d-construction-corp-nyappdiv-2001.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack