Melanson v. Caggiano

Jun 10, 1998
Reporters:
,

—Order unanimously reversed on the law without costs and motion denied. ‍​‌​​​‌​‌‌‌​‌‌​‌‌​​​​‌‌‌‌‌‌‌​‌‌​​​‌​‌​‌​​​​​​‌‌‌​​‌‌​‌‌​​‌‌‌​​‌​​​‌​‌​​​‌​​​​‌​‌‌​​‌‌‌‌‌​​​​‌​‌​​‍Memorandum: “[A]bsent special, unusual or extraordinary circumstances spelled out factually” by defendants, Supreme Court lacked discretion to grant defendants’ motion ‍​‌​​​‌​‌‌‌​‌‌​‌‌​​​​‌‌‌‌‌‌‌​‌‌​​​‌​‌​‌​​​​​​‌‌‌​​‌‌​‌‌​​‌‌‌​​‌​​​‌​‌​​​‌​​​​‌​‌‌​​‌‌‌‌‌​​​​‌​‌​​‍for further discovery after the note of issue and statement of readiness were filed (Gould v Marone, 197 AD2d 862; see, Armatys v Edwards, 229 ‍​‌​​​‌​‌‌‌​‌‌​‌‌​​​​‌‌‌‌‌‌‌​‌‌​​​‌​‌​‌​​​​​​‌‌‌​​‌‌​‌‌​​‌‌‌​​‌​​​‌​‌​​​‌​​​​‌​‌‌​​‌‌‌‌‌​​​​‌​‌​​‍AD2d 906, 907; Cottrell v Spina, 214 AD2d 946). “A lack of diligence in seeking discovery does not constitute a special or an ‍​‌​​​‌​‌‌‌​‌‌​‌‌​​​​‌‌‌‌‌‌‌​‌‌​​​‌​‌​‌​​​​​​‌‌‌​​‌‌​‌‌​​‌‌‌​​‌​​​‌​‌​​​‌​​​​‌​‌‌​​‌‌‌‌‌​​​​‌​‌​​‍extraordinary circumstance” (Laudico v Sears, Roebuck & Co., 125 AD2d 960, 961). (Appeal from Order of Supreme Court, Erie County, No-taro, J. — Discovery.) ‍​‌​​​‌​‌‌‌​‌‌​‌‌​​​​‌‌‌‌‌‌‌​‌‌​​​‌​‌​‌​​​​​​‌‌‌​​‌‌​‌‌​​‌‌‌​​‌​​​‌​‌​​​‌​​​​‌​‌‌​​‌‌‌‌‌​​​​‌​‌​​‍Present — Green, J. P., Lawton, Wisner, Callahan and Boehm, JJ.