ANZELONE v. EMERSON ELECTRIC CO (2008)

 Defendants appeal and plaintiff cross-appeals from an order that granted in part plaintiff's motion to compel further disclosure.   We agree with defendants that Supreme Court erred in failing to deny the motion in its entirety, and we therefore modify the order accordingly.   Plaintiff made the motion after filing a note of issue, and “ [t]his 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” (Gould v. Marone, 197 A.D.2d 862, 604 N.Y.S.2d 867;  see Laudico v. Sears, Roebuck & Co., 125 A.D.2d 960, 961, 510 N.Y.S.2d 787;  Gray v. Crouse-Irving Mem. Hosp., 107 A.D.2d 1038, 1039, 486 N.Y.S.2d 540).   Contrary to plaintiff's contention, neither an agreement between the parties to conduct further discovery nor the fact that further discovery was indeed conducted after the note of issue was filed constitutes a special, unusual, or extraordinary circumstance (see Amherst Magnetic Imaging Assoc. v. Community Blue, HMO of Blue Cross of W.N.Y., 262 A.D.2d 1082, 692 N.Y.S.2d 627;  Armatys v. Edwards, 229 A.D.2d 906, 646 N.Y.S.2d 65).   In light of our decision, we need not address the parties' remaining contentions.

It is hereby ORDERED that the order so appealed from is unanimously modified on the law by denying the motion in its entirety and as modified the order is affirmed without costs.

MEMORANDUM: