Massa v. Lower Manhattan Development Corp.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Massa v. Lower Manhattan Development Corp.

142 A.D.3d 927, 37 N.Y.S.3d 893

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

DecidedSeptember 29, 2016

Docket1772N 100115/09

StatusPublished

This text of 142 A.D.3d 927 (Massa v. Lower Manhattan Development 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

Massa v. Lower Manhattan Development Corp., 142 A.D.3d 927, 37 N.Y.S.3d 893 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2016).

Pincite

Opinion

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Lynn R. Kotler, J.), entered March 21, 2016, which denied defendants Bovis Lend Lease LMB, Inc. and Bovis Lend Lease, Inc.’s (Bovis) motion to quash a subpoena by plaintiff for a nonparty deposition, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

The motion court determined that the motion to quash was moot because the noticed deposition date had passed. This was erroneous, because the deposition had been adjourned to May 20, 2016. Moreover, both plaintiff and Bovis acknowledge that the deposition has not yet taken place.

Nevertheless, plaintiff demonstrated “unusual or unanticipated circumstances” and “substantial prejudice” warranting post-note-of-issue discovery (see 22 NYCRR 202.21 [d]; Arons v Jutkowitz, 9 NY3d 393, 411 [2007]; Schroeder v IESI NY Corp., 24 AD3d 180 [1st Dept 2005]). Counsel’s statement that he only realized the importance of the nonparty witness’s testimony after filing the note of issue is sufficient.

Concur— Mazzarelli, J.P., Acosta, Saxe, Moskowitz and Gesmer, JJ.

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

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Lynn R. Kotler, J.), entered March 21, 2016, which denied defendants Bovis Lend Lease LMB, Inc. and Bovis Lend Lease, Inc.’s (Bovis) motion to quash a subpoena by plaintiff for a nonparty deposition, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

The motion court determined that the motion to quash was moot because the noticed deposition date had passed. This was erroneous, because the deposition had been adjourned to May 20, 2016. Moreover, both plaintiff and Bovis acknowledge that the deposition has not yet taken place.

Nevertheless, plaintiff demonstrated “unusual or unanticipated circumstances” and “substantial prejudice” warranting post-note-of-issue discovery (see 22 NYCRR 202.21 [d]; Arons v Jutkowitz, 9 NY3d 393, 411 [2007]; Schroeder v IESI NY Corp., 24 AD3d 180 [1st Dept 2005]). Counsel’s statement that he only realized the importance of the nonparty witness’s testimony after filing the note of issue is sufficient.

Concur— Mazzarelli, J.P., Acosta, Saxe, Moskowitz and Gesmer, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

142 A.D.3d 927, 37 N.Y.S.3d 893, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/massa-v-lower-manhattan-development-corp-nyappdiv-2016.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack