Santana v. Seagrave Fire Apparatus Corp.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Santana v. Seagrave Fire Apparatus Corp.

266 A.D.2d 369, 698 N.Y.S.2d 168, 1999 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 11543

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

DecidedNovember 15, 1999

StatusPublished

This text of 266 A.D.2d 369 (Santana v. Seagrave Fire Apparatus 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

Santana v. Seagrave Fire Apparatus Corp., 266 A.D.2d 369, 698 N.Y.S.2d 168, 1999 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 11543 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1999).

Pincite

Opinion

—In an action to recover damages for personal injuries and wrongful death, the plaintiffs appeal from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Schneier, J.), dated December 11, 1998, as denied their motion for further discovery.

Ordered that the order is affirmed insofar as appealed from, with one bill of costs payable to the respondents appearing separately and filing separate briefs.

The Supreme Court may, in its discretion, grant permission to conduct additional discovery after the filing of a note of issue and certificate of readiness, where the moving party demonstrates that unusual or unanticipated circumstances developed subsequent to the filing which require additional pretrial proceedings to prevent substantial prejudice (see, 22 NYCRR 202.21 [d]). Here, however, the plaintiffs failed to offer sufficient evidence of such circumstances which would justify the further discovery requested. Altman, J. P., H. Miller, Schmidt and Smith, JJ., concur.

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

—In an action to recover damages for personal injuries and wrongful death, the plaintiffs appeal from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Schneier, J.), dated December 11, 1998, as denied their motion for further discovery.

Ordered that the order is affirmed insofar as appealed from, with one bill of costs payable to the respondents appearing separately and filing separate briefs.

The Supreme Court may, in its discretion, grant permission to conduct additional discovery after the filing of a note of issue and certificate of readiness, where the moving party demonstrates that unusual or unanticipated circumstances developed subsequent to the filing which require additional pretrial proceedings to prevent substantial prejudice (see, 22 NYCRR 202.21 [d]). Here, however, the plaintiffs failed to offer sufficient evidence of such circumstances which would justify the further discovery requested. Altman, J. P., H. Miller, Schmidt and Smith, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

266 A.D.2d 369, 698 N.Y.S.2d 168, 1999 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 11543, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/santana-v-seagrave-fire-apparatus-corp-nyappdiv-1999.