Torres v. Saint Vincents Catholic Medical Centers

71 A.D.3d 873, 895 N.Y.S.2d 861
CourtAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York
DecidedMarch 16, 2010
StatusPublished
Cited by6 cases

This text of 71 A.D.3d 873 (Torres v. Saint Vincents Catholic Medical Centers) 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
Torres v. Saint Vincents Catholic Medical Centers, 71 A.D.3d 873, 895 N.Y.S.2d 861 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2010).

Opinion

In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, the plaintiff appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Siegal, J.), entered September 30, 2009, which granted that branch of the defendants’ motion which was to strike the action from the trial calendar and to vacate the note of issue and certificate of readiness.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.

A motion to vacate the note of issue and certificate of readiness made more than 20 days after their filing will be granted only where “a materiál fact in the certificate of readiness is incorrect” or upon “good cause shown” (22 NYCRR 202.21 [e]; see Ferraro v North Babylon Union Free School Dist., 69 AD3d 559, 560 [2010]). To satisfy the requirement of “good cause,” the party seeking vacatur must “demonstrate 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” (Utica Mut. Ins. Co. v P.M.A. Corp., 34 AD3d 793, 794 [2006]; see Ferraro v North Babylon Union Free School Dist., 69 AD3d 559 [2010]; White v Mazella-White, 60 AD3d 1047, 1049 [2009]; Audiovox Corp. v Benyamini, 265 AD2d 135, 139-140 [2000]). Under the circumstances presented, the Supreme Court providently exercised its discretion in concluding that this standard was met, and in granting that branch of the defendants’ motion which was to strike the action from the trial calendar and to vacate the note of issue and certificate of readiness, in effect, to permit the defendants to conduct independent medical examinations of the plaintiff (see Congregation Yetev Lev D’Satmar, Inc. v 26 Adar N.B. Corp., 32 AD3d 376 [2006]). Dillon, J.P., Miller, Balkin, Leventhal and Austin, JJ., concur.

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

Related

Nunez v. City of New York
2025 NY Slip Op 01815 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2025)
C Castle Group Corp. v. Herzfeld & Rubin, P.C.
2022 NY Slip Op 07431 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2022)
Matter of Tsoukas v. Tsoukas
125 A.D.3d 872 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2015)
Sansone v. Sansone
114 A.D.3d 748 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2014)
Witherspoon v. Surat Realty Corp.
82 A.D.3d 1087 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2011)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
71 A.D.3d 873, 895 N.Y.S.2d 861, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/torres-v-saint-vincents-catholic-medical-centers-nyappdiv-2010.