Legal Opinion
Gould v. Marone
Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York
Decided October 1, 1993PublishedCited by 13 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
—Order unanimously reversed on the law with costs and motion denied. Memorandum: This Court has repeatedly stated that, absent special, unusual or extraordinary circumstances spelled out factually, the motion court lacks discretion to permit further discovery after the note of issue and statement of readiness have been filed (see, e.g., Laudico v Sears, Roebuck & Co., 125 AD2d 960, 961; Gray v Crouse-Irving Mem. Hosp., 107 AD2d 1038, 1039-1040; Niagara Falls Urban Renewal Agency v Pomeroy Real Estate Corp., 74 AD2d 734, appeal dismissed 50 NY2d 842). The record is devoid of evidence of…
2Cases cited3 opinions
- Laudico v. Sears, Roebuck & Co.Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1986
- Gray v. Crouse-Irving Memorial Hospital, Inc.Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1985
- Niagara Falls Urban Renewal Agency v. Pomeroy Real Estate Corp.Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1980
3Cited by13 opinions
- Peterson v. ZuercherAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1993
- Marks v. MorrisonAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 2000
- 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
- Melanson v. CaggianoAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1998
8 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.