Melanson v. Caggiano

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Melanson v. Caggiano

251 A.D.2d 1059, 672 N.Y.S.2d 829

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York·Decided June 10, 1998·Published·Cited by 4 cases

Opinion

—Order unanimously reversed on the law without costs and motion denied. Memorandum: “[A]bsent special, unusual or extraordinary circumstances spelled out factually” by defendants, Supreme Court lacked discretion to grant defendants’ motion for further discovery after the note of issue and statement of readiness were filed (Gould v Marone, 197 AD2d 862; see, Armatys v Edwards, 229 AD2d 906, 907; Cottrell v Spina, 214 AD2d 946). “A lack of diligence in seeking discovery does not constitute a special or an extraordinary circumstance” (Laudico v Sears, Roebuck & Co., 125 AD2d 960, 961). (Appeal from Order of Supreme Court, Erie County, No-taro, J. — Discovery.) Present — Green, J. P., Lawton, Wisner, Callahan and Boehm, JJ.

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

—Order unanimously reversed on the law without costs and motion denied. Memorandum: “[A]bsent special, unusual or extraordinary circumstances spelled out factually” by defendants, Supreme Court lacked discretion to grant defendants’ motion for further discovery after the note of issue and statement of readiness were filed (Gould v Marone, 197 AD2d 862; see, Armatys v Edwards, 229 AD2d 906, 907; Cottrell v Spina, 214 AD2d 946). “A lack of diligence in seeking discovery does not constitute a special or an extraordinary circumstance” (Laudico v Sears, Roebuck & Co., 125 AD2d 960, 961). (Appeal from Order of Supreme Court, Erie County, No-taro, J. — Discovery.) Present — Green, J. P., Lawton, Wisner, Callahan and Boehm, JJ.

Melanson v. Caggiano, 251 A.D.2d 1059, 672 N.Y.S.2d 829 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1998).

Pincite

251 A.D.2d 1059 (Melanson v. Caggiano) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related