AMICUS AI
Citation Codes
Equivalent Citations
citation codes
Are you a practicing lawyer?
Enhance your digital presence and reach by creating a Casemine profile.
Upload pleading to use the new AI search
Cites
Cited by
Citation Codes
Equivalent Citations
citation codes

REMARK ELECTRIC CORP., Respondent, v. MANSHUL CONSTRUCTION CORP. et al., Defendants, and AETNA CASUALTY AND SURETY COMPANY, Appellant.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.

This action was commenced on February 1, 1994. On August 14, 1994, the plaintiff served and filed a note of issue and Certificate of Readiness. On January 10, 1996, the defendant Aetna Casualty and Surety Company moved to vacate the note of issue and compel the plaintiff to answer certain interrogatories which it asserted had been served on May 3, 1994. The plaintiff denies that it ever received any interrogatories. The Supreme Court denied the motion, and we affirm.

Under the circumstances of this case, the court providently exercised its discretion in denying the appellant's motion. The appellant is guilty of inexcusable delay by waiting approximately 18 months before moving to vacate the note of issue, and some 20 months before seeking to compel answers to the interrogatories ( see, CPLR 3124; Uniform Rules for Trial Cts [22 N.Y.CRR] § 202.21 [e]; Socha Bldrs. v. Town of Clifton Park, 99 A.D.2d 890; Cassidy v. Kolonsky, 37 A.D.2d 880). The appellant had ample time in which to conduct discovery ( see, Simmons v. Kemble, 150 A.D.2d 986; Bycomp, Inc. v. New York Racing Assn., 116 A.D.2d 895; cf., Williams v. Long Is. Coll. Hosp., 147 A.D.2d 558).

Mangano, P.J., Copertino, Altman and Goldstein, JJ., concur.

Use AI to get other relevant cases.

Comments

REMARK ELEC. CORP. v. MANSHUL CONST. CORP
(Sep 29, 1997)