Home/Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York/Rhodes v. Stoddard

Rhodes v. Stoddard

92 A.D.3d 749, 938 N.Y.2d 468
Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York·Decided February 14, 2012·Published

Opinion

The Supreme Court providently exercised its discretion in denying the defendant’s motion, made on the eve of trial and more than one year after the note of issue and certificate of readiness had been filed, inter alia, to compel the plaintiff to provide authorizations for the release of certain medical and employment records. The defendant failed to make any showing that “unusual or unanticipated circumstances” developed subsequent to the filing of the note of issue and certificate of readiness requiring additional pretrial proceedings to prevent substantial prejudice (22 NYCRR 202.21 [d]; Meadow Lane Equities Corp. v Hill, 63 AD3d 701, 701 [2009]; Silverberg v Guzman, 61 AD3d 955, 956 [2009]; Gomez v New York City Tr. Auth., 19 AD3d 366, 366 [2005]; Blankenship v Schwartz, 127 AD2d 624, 624 [1987]). Skelos, J.E, Dickerson, Hall, Roman and Cohen, JJ., concur.

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

Rhodes v. Stoddard, 92 A.D.3d 749, 938 N.Y.2d 468 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2012).

92 A.D.3d 749 (Rhodes v. Stoddard) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Gomez v. New York City Transit Authority
19 A.D.3d 366 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2005)
Silverberg v. Guzman
61 A.D.3d 955 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2009)
Meadow Lane Equities Corp. v. Hill
63 A.D.3d 701 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2009)
Blankenship v. Schwartz
127 A.D.2d 624 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1987)