Naftaliyev v. GGP Staten Island Mall, LLC (2025) – The Appellate Division Constrains Judicial Power to Vacate a Note of Issue and Re-Affirms the “Special & Extraordinary Circumstances” Standard for Late Amendments of a Bill of Particulars

1. Introduction

The Second Department’s decision in Naftaliyev v. GGP Staten Island Mall, LLC, 2025 NY Slip Op 03579 (June 11, 2025) resolves a discovery-stage tug-of-war that lasted more than eight years. At center stage was whether plaintiffs, after the case had been certified ready for trial and a note of issue filed, could add wholly new bodily injuries through an “amended” bill of particulars, and whether the Supreme Court could, on its own initiative (sua sponte), vacate the note of issue to facilitate that amendment.

The plaintiffs (Larisa Naftaliyev and her husband) originally alleged injuries to the right side of Ms. Naftaliyev’s body following a parking-lot trip-and-fall at the Staten Island Mall. Two years after filing their note of issue they sought to expand that list to include injuries to the left ankle and foot, claiming a causal chain that ran through an intervening “second accident.” The defendant-appellant, GGP Staten Island Mall, LLC (“GGP”), resisted on the grounds of lateness, prejudice, and insufficiency of medical proof.

The Appellate Division reversed two pivotal rulings of the Supreme Court (Richmond County) and established a precedent that cabins judicial discretion in two important respects:

• Courts may not vacate a note of issue sua sponte absent a material misstatement in the certificate of readiness or legitimate, pending discovery demands.
• After a case is certified ready for trial, an amended bill of particulars asserting new injuries will be allowed only upon a showing of “special and extraordinary circumstances,” a reasonable excuse for delay, and medical evidence of merit.

2. Summary of the Judgment

The appellate court:

1. Dismissed the appeal from the June 6, 2022 order to the extent it was unappealable (CPLR 5701[a]).
2. Modified the November 4, 2022 order by (a) granting GGP’s motion to vacate the Supreme Court’s prior sua sponte vacatur of the note of issue, and (b) denying plaintiffs’ motion for leave to serve an amended bill of particulars.
3. Awarded one bill of costs to GGP.

In effect, the note of issue is reinstated, discovery is closed, the new injuries are out, and the action proceeds to trial confined to the original injuries (right elbow, wrist, knee, and back).

3. Detailed Analysis

3.1 Precedents Cited and Their Influence

• Jablonsky v. Nerlich, 189 A.D.3d 1561 (2d Dep’t 2020)
  Quoted for the rule that a certificate of readiness is a “material fact” under 22 NYCRR 202.21(e); a note of issue may be vacated only where the fact is incorrect and legitimate discovery remains. Naftaliyev relies heavily on Jablonsky to limit sua sponte vacatur.
• Schreiber-Cross v. State of New York, 57 A.D.3d 881 (2d Dep’t 2008)
  Provides the “special and extraordinary circumstances” threshold for post-note amendments. The court adopts this language verbatim.
• King v. Marwest, LLC, 192 A.D.3d 874 (2d Dep’t 2021); Anonymous v. Gleason, 175 A.D.3d 614 (2d Dep’t 2019)
  Reaffirm that once discovery closes, amendments require caution. Cited to underscore judicial prudence.
• Canals v. Lai, 132 A.D.3d 626 (2d Dep’t 2015)
  Stands for the twin requirements of reasonable excuse and merit where there is “inordinate delay”; used to reject the plaintiffs’ medical affirmation.
• Law-of-the-Case Doctrine – Keneally, Lynch & Bak, LLP v. Salvi, 231 A.D.3d 1137 (3d Dep’t 2023)
  Invoked to deny GGP’s request to strike the same medical affirmation, because the prior appeal had already resolved that discrete issue.

3.2 The Court’s Legal Reasoning

1. Lack of Basis for Sua Sponte Vacatur
   Under 22 NYCRR 202.21(e), a court may vacate a note of issue when (a) the certificate of readiness contains a material misstatement and (b) legitimate discovery remains. The Second Department found neither condition satisfied; no discovery demands were outstanding and the certificate was accurate. Therefore, the Supreme Court overstepped.
2. Stringent Standard for Late Amendments
   CPLR 3025(b) generally encourages liberal amendment, but the court carved out an exception for post-certification amendments that add new injuries: the movant must show “special and extraordinary circumstances.” The plaintiffs waited roughly five years after the certificate of readiness and offered no credible reason. Their medical expert, Dr. Dmitriy Grinshpun, failed to tie the left-side injuries to the original fall both temporally (a six-month gap and intervening accident) and physiologically. Hence, no merit plus no excuse equals denial.
3. Law of the Case Preserved
   Although GGP renewed its attack on Dr. Grinshpun’s affirmation, the appellate court refused to revisit its prior determination (204 A.D.3d 932 [2022]), illustrating respect for intraproceeding finality.

3.3 Likely Impact on New York Practice

• Constraint on Judicial Initiative
  Trial courts within the Second Department — and arguably statewide — must articulate a statutory or rule-based predicate before vacating a note of issue sua sponte. Mere suspicion that a plaintiff will seek to amend pleadings is insufficient.
• Elevated Threshold for New Injuries
  Plaintiffs’ bar will have to marshal contemporaneous medical records and act promptly if additional injuries emerge, or risk exclusion. Defense counsel can cite Naftaliyev to oppose late claims that appear strategically motivated.
• Strategic Timing of “Second Accidents” Theories
  Where a plaintiff alleges that an initial tort left her vulnerable to a second mishap, the causal bridge must be established early, else the bridge may be barred completely.
• Administrative Efficiency
  The decision furthers the judiciary’s policy of adhering to trial calendars and reducing discovery-stage back-tracking.

4. Complex Concepts Simplified

• Note of Issue – A filing that says: “We are done with discovery; put us on the trial calendar.” Once filed, the case is supposed to move inexorably toward trial.
• Certificate of Readiness – An accompanying form where the filer certifies that discovery is complete. An incorrect certificate may justify vacating the note of issue.
• Bill of Particulars – A document that amplifies the pleadings by itemizing the injuries, damages, and theories. Think of it as a detailed menu of what the plaintiff will claim at trial.
• Amended vs. Supplemental Bill of Particulars – A “supplemental” bill merely updates existing injuries (e.g., worsening back pain). An “amended” bill adds new injuries (e.g., left ankle fracture). Post-note, the latter requires court permission.
• Sua Sponte – Latin for “of one’s own accord.” It means the court acted without a motion by any party.
• Special & Extraordinary Circumstances – A heightened standard that demands more than the normal showing of “no prejudice.” Courts look for unexpected, unavoidable events and prompt, diligent action.
• Law of the Case – Once an appellate court decides a point of law, that determination governs subsequent phases of the same litigation unless new evidence or a change in law emerges.

5. Conclusion

Naftaliyev v. GGP Staten Island Mall, LLC draws two bright lines: (1) Trial courts cannot vacate a note of issue on their own whim; they need concrete, rule-based grounds. (2) Plaintiffs who wish to add new injuries after the case is deemed trial-ready must clear a high bar: special circumstances, reasonable excuse, and persuasive medical linkage.

Beyond its immediate effect on the parties, the decision promotes procedural discipline and predictability in New York litigation. Practitioners should treat it as a cautionary tale: certify readiness only when discovery is truly complete, and move swiftly if newly discovered injuries or theories arise.