Legal Opinion
Melanson v. Caggiano
Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York
Decided June 10, 1998PublishedCited by 4 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
—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…
2Cases cited4 opinions
- Laudico v. Sears, Roebuck & Co.Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1986
- Gould v. MaroneAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1993
- Armatys v. EdwardsAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1996
- Cottrell v. SpinaAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1995
3Cited by4 opinions
- Marks v. MorrisonAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 2000
- Sims v. FerraccioAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1999
- Amherst Magnetic Imaging Associates, P. C. v. Community BlueAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1999
- Laudisio v. Diamond D Construction Corp.Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 2001