Matos v. City of New York

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Matos v. City of New York

2017 NY Slip Op 7231, 154 A.D.3d 532, 63 N.Y.S.3d 324

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

DecidedOctober 17, 2017

Docket309441/09 4712N 4711

StatusPublished

Cited by6 cases

This text of 2017 NY Slip Op 7231 (Matos v. City of New York) 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

Matos v. City of New York, 2017 NY Slip Op 7231, 154 A.D.3d 532, 63 N.Y.S.3d 324 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2017).

Pincite

Opinion

Order, Supreme Court, Bronx County (Larry S. Schachner, J.), entered June 9, 2016, which, to the extent appealed from as limited by the briefs, granted plaintiff’s motion to vacate his note of issue, and order, same court and Justice, entered January 19, 2017, which, to the extent appealed from as limited by the briefs, granted plaintiff’s motion to compel defendant to comply with outstanding discovery demands, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

The motion court providently exercised its discretion in vacating plaintiff’s note of issue where plaintiff’s former counsel made a material misstatement that discovery was complete. A note of issue should be vacated where “it is based upon a certificate of readiness that incorrectly states that all discovery has been completed” (Nielsen v New York State Dormitory Auth., 84 AD3d 519, 520 [1st Dept 2011]). Since discovery was not completed, the motion court correctly vacated the note of issue (see Gomes v Valentine Realty LLC, 32 AD3d 699, 700 [1st Dept 2006]; Cromer v Yellen, 268 AD2d 381 [1st Dept 2000]). Upon vacatur of the note of issue, the case was restored to its pre-note of issue status (see Tejeda v Dyal, 125 AD3d 578 [1st Dept 2015]). Accordingly, the court properly granted plaintiff’s motion to compel defendant to comply with outstanding discovery demands.

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

Concur — Tom, J.P., Richter, Andrias, Gesmer and Singh, JJ.

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

Order, Supreme Court, Bronx County (Larry S. Schachner, J.), entered June 9, 2016, which, to the extent appealed from as limited by the briefs, granted plaintiff’s motion to vacate his note of issue, and order, same court and Justice, entered January 19, 2017, which, to the extent appealed from as limited by the briefs, granted plaintiff’s motion to compel defendant to comply with outstanding discovery demands, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

The motion court providently exercised its discretion in vacating plaintiff’s note of issue where plaintiff’s former counsel made a material misstatement that discovery was complete. A note of issue should be vacated where “it is based upon a certificate of readiness that incorrectly states that all discovery has been completed” (Nielsen v New York State Dormitory Auth., 84 AD3d 519, 520 [1st Dept 2011]). Since discovery was not completed, the motion court correctly vacated the note of issue (see Gomes v Valentine Realty LLC, 32 AD3d 699, 700 [1st Dept 2006]; Cromer v Yellen, 268 AD2d 381 [1st Dept 2000]). Upon vacatur of the note of issue, the case was restored to its pre-note of issue status (see Tejeda v Dyal, 125 AD3d 578 [1st Dept 2015]). Accordingly, the court properly granted plaintiff’s motion to compel defendant to comply with outstanding discovery demands.

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

Concur — Tom, J.P., Richter, Andrias, Gesmer and Singh, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

2017 NY Slip Op 7231, 154 A.D.3d 532, 63 N.Y.S.3d 324, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/matos-v-city-of-new-york-nyappdiv-2017.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack