Novaro v. Jomar Real Estate Corp.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Novaro v. Jomar Real Estate Corp.

156 A.D.2d 213, 548 N.Y.S.2d 475, 1989 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 15466

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

DecidedDecember 12, 1989

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 156 A.D.2d 213 (Novaro v. Jomar Real Estate 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

Novaro v. Jomar Real Estate Corp., 156 A.D.2d 213, 548 N.Y.S.2d 475, 1989 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 15466 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1989).

Pincite

Opinion

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (William J. Davis, J.), entered June 22, 1989, which denied plaintiffs motion to strike the note of issue but granted plaintiff the right to conduct further discovery, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (William J. Davis, J.), entered May 22, 1989, which granted plaintiffs application to restore his motion to strike the note of issue to the calendar, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

The IAS court did not abuse its discretion in permitting further discovery under the circumstances of this case. Nor is the plaintiff precluded from obtaining discovery by virtue of his prior filing of a note of issue and certificate of readiness at an earlier stage of this action. When at that time the defendants successfully moved to strike that note of issue and certificate of readiness, it became a nullity. Since then, further discovery demands have been made by the parties, and the defendants’ current filing of the instant note of issue and [214]*214certificate of readiness was premature since some of these discovery requests were still outstanding.

We also find that the IAS court did not abuse its discretion in permitting plaintiff to restore the motion to the calendar, after it had earlier been marked "off calendar” for plaintiffs failure to appear. Furthermore, we note that there is no impropriety even though this determination was not the result of a motion on notice and was made at an informal conference. In furtherance of the goals of the IAS system and the inherent power of the courts to control their calendars and supervise the progress and conduct of litigation, the informal procedure utilized here at the preliminary conference was not inappropriate. Furthermore, since the decision was reduced to writing, "so ordered” by the court, and entered as a formal order, it is appealable (cf., Matter of Grisi v Shainswit, 119 AD2d 418). Concur—Ellerin, J. P., Wallach, Smith and Rubin, JJ.

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

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (William J. Davis, J.), entered June 22, 1989, which denied plaintiffs motion to strike the note of issue but granted plaintiff the right to conduct further discovery, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (William J. Davis, J.), entered May 22, 1989, which granted plaintiffs application to restore his motion to strike the note of issue to the calendar, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

The IAS court did not abuse its discretion in permitting further discovery under the circumstances of this case. Nor is the plaintiff precluded from obtaining discovery by virtue of his prior filing of a note of issue and certificate of readiness at an earlier stage of this action. When at that time the defendants successfully moved to strike that note of issue and certificate of readiness, it became a nullity. Since then, further discovery demands have been made by the parties, and the defendants’ current filing of the instant note of issue and [214]*214certificate of readiness was premature since some of these discovery requests were still outstanding.

We also find that the IAS court did not abuse its discretion in permitting plaintiff to restore the motion to the calendar, after it had earlier been marked "off calendar” for plaintiffs failure to appear. Furthermore, we note that there is no impropriety even though this determination was not the result of a motion on notice and was made at an informal conference. In furtherance of the goals of the IAS system and the inherent power of the courts to control their calendars and supervise the progress and conduct of litigation, the informal procedure utilized here at the preliminary conference was not inappropriate. Furthermore, since the decision was reduced to writing, "so ordered” by the court, and entered as a formal order, it is appealable (cf., Matter of Grisi v Shainswit, 119 AD2d 418). Concur—Ellerin, J. P., Wallach, Smith and Rubin, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

156 A.D.2d 213, 548 N.Y.S.2d 475, 1989 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 15466, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/novaro-v-jomar-real-estate-corp-nyappdiv-1989.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack