Cole v. Rappazzo Electric Co.

I respectfully dissent. Established case law compels rigid adherence to the provisions of 22 NYCRR 202.21 (d) to “relieve calendar congestion and * * * foster the orderly disposition of and processing of litigated matters” (Wahrhaftig v Space Design Group, 33 AD2d 953) unless unusual or unanticipated circumstances are present (see, Cooper v Swallow, 55 AD2d 752; Wahrhaftig v Space Design Group, supra). I fail to find such circumstances here.

The request for additional pretrial proceedings was made approximately five years after defendant Zep Manufacturing Company’s response to discovery.…