Pua v. LamPua v. Lam
When, as in this case, statements in a certificate of readiness concerning completion of discovery are incorrect or blatantly false, a motion to strike the note of issue should be granted (see e.g. Cromer v Yellen, 268 AD2d 381 [1st Dept 2000]). Plaintiff’s contention that the motion has been mooted by the completion of most discovery is based on representations concerning subsequent matters, not in the appellate record, and of which judicial notice cannot be taken (see Walker v City of New York, 46 AD3d 278 [1st Dept 2007]). In any event, plaintiff acknowledges that discovery remains outstanding.
We have considered plaintiff’s remaining contentions and find them unavailing. Concur—Renwick, J.P., Manzanet-Daniels, Andrias, Kern and Oing, JJ.