Madison v. Sama

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Madison v. Sama

92 A.D.3d 607, 938 N.Y.2d 802

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York·Decided February 28, 2012·Published·Cited by 3 cases

Opinion

Plaintiff requested leave to conduct a further deposition of defendant Sama after filing a note of issue and certificate of readiness for trial. The only reason that plaintiff proffered for this request was that the expert engaged by his new counsel to review the file had discovered areas of inquiry that his former counsel had failed to pursue. This is insufficient to establish that “unusual or unanticipated circumstances” had developed requiring further discovery “to prevent substantial prejudice” (see 22 NYCRR 202.21 [d]; Schroeder v IESI NY Corp., 24 AD3d 180 [2005]). Concur — Andrias, J.P, Catterson, Abdus-Salaam and Manzanet-Daniels, JJ.

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

Plaintiff requested leave to conduct a further deposition of defendant Sama after filing a note of issue and certificate of readiness for trial. The only reason that plaintiff proffered for this request was that the expert engaged by his new counsel to review the file had discovered areas of inquiry that his former counsel had failed to pursue. This is insufficient to establish that “unusual or unanticipated circumstances” had developed requiring further discovery “to prevent substantial prejudice” (see 22 NYCRR 202.21 [d]; Schroeder v IESI NY Corp., 24 AD3d 180 [2005]). Concur — Andrias, J.P, Catterson, Abdus-Salaam and Manzanet-Daniels, JJ.

Madison v. Sama, 92 A.D.3d 607, 938 N.Y.2d 802 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2012).

Pincite

92 A.D.3d 607 (Madison v. Sama) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related