MOLNER v. MOLNER (2025)

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Michael L. Katz, J.), entered on or about February 3, 2025, which, to the extent appealed from as limited by the briefs, denied plaintiff husband's motion for leave to renew his opposition to defendant wife's motion for an extension of time to serve her Notice for Discovery and Inspection, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

Upon missing a discovery deadline, counsel for the wife sought an extension of time to serve her discovery demands.  In its July 2, 2024 order, Supreme Court granted the motion, crediting the attorney's representation that he was retained after the court set the discovery deadline and did not become aware of the deadline until it passed.  The brief extension to serve discovery demands was based on, inter alia, “law office failure,” a recognized basis under CPLR 2004 and 2005 (see N450JE LLC v. Priority 1 Aviation, Inc., 102 A.D.3d 631, 633, 959 N.Y.S.2d 156 [1st Dept. 2013];  see also C Castle Group Corp. v. Herzfeld & Rubin, P.C., 211 A.D.3d 1006, 1007, 181 N.Y.S.3d 313 [2d Dept. 2022]).

Supreme Court providently exercised its discretion in denying the husband's motion for leave to renew.  The husband proffered emails as new evidence claiming to show that the attorney for the wife was indeed aware of the discovery deadline prior to its passing.  The court considered the husband's argument, reviewed the emails, and providently adhered to its prior ruling granting the extension because it found that the emails failed to demonstrate that the attorney's prior representation was false (see Solis v. 340 W. 12 Realty LLC, 226 A.D.3d 449, 450, 208 N.Y.S.3d 584 [1st Dept. 2024];  CPLR 2221[e]).

We have considered the husband's remaining arguments and find them unavailing.