Torres v. New York City Transit Authority

192 A.D.2d 400, 596 N.Y.S.2d 66
Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York·Decided April 15, 1993·Published·Cited by 5 cases

Opinion

—Order, Supreme Court, Bronx County (Herbert Shapiro, J.), entered November 2, 1991, denying defendant-appellant’s motion to vacate the note of issue but allowing defendants to complete discovery within 45 days which would include conducting a physical examination of plaintiff, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

We perceive no abuse of discretion in the court’s refusing to vacate the note of issue while permitting defendants to complete necessary outstanding disclosure, where the note of issue was not filed until almost a year after the preliminary conference and defendants claimed that due to their trial schedule and staff limitations they were unable to complete disclosure in a timely manner pursuant to the preliminary conference order (see, Smukler v 12 Lofts Realty, 178 AD2d 125). Concur —Sullivan, J. P., Rosenberger, Kupferman and Asch, JJ.

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

Torres v. New York City Transit Authority, 192 A.D.2d 400, 596 N.Y.S.2d 66 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1993).

192 A.D.2d 400 (Torres v. New York City Transit Authority) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Pickering v. Union 15 Restaurant Corp.
107 A.D.3d 450 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2013)
Grossman v. Amalgamated Warbasse Houses, Inc.
21 A.D.3d 448 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2005)
Sun Plaza Enterprises Corp. v. Crown Theatres
307 A.D.2d 352 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2003)
Gold Connection Discount Jewelers, Inc. v. American District Telegraph Co.
212 A.D.2d 577 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1995)