Learn About the Law
Get help with your legal needs
FindLaw’s Learn About the Law features thousands of informational articles to help you understand your options. And if you’re ready to hire an attorney, find one in your area who can help.
SF CONSULTANTS, LLC, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. 28 WEST GROUP CORP et al., Defendants-Respondents.
Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Emily Morales–Minerva, J.), entered on or about November 18, 2024, which, to the extent appealed from as limited by the briefs, denied plaintiff's motion to extend the deadline for filing the note of issue, unanimously reversed, on the law, the facts, and in the exercise of discretion, with costs, the motion granted, and the deadline for filing of the note of issue extended 90 days from the date of this decision.
Supreme Court improvidently exercised its discretion in denying plaintiff's motion. Plaintiff had good cause for an extension of time, as they demonstrated a reasonable excuse for their delay in providing disclosure — among other things, their inability to access bank records that had been locked because of an unrelated fraud — and good faith efforts to resolve discovery disputes before proceeding to trial (see Estate of Ungar ex rel. Strachman v. Palestinian Auth., 44 A.D.3d 176, 180–182, 841 N.Y.S.2d 61 [1st Dept. 2007]). Furthermore, the delays giving rise to the requested extension did not arise from willfulness in missing deadlines, but from legitimate difficulties encountered by both sides during discovery. Nor are defendants prejudiced by an extension of the deadline; indeed, defendants did not oppose plaintiff's motion, and do not oppose plaintiff's appeal now, and in fact have previously expressed their own need for an extension of time to obtain further discovery (see CPLR 2004; Kellogg v. All Saints Hous. Dev. Fund Co., Inc., 146 A.D.3d 615, 616, 46 N.Y.S.3d 30 [1st Dept. 2017]). Under the circumstances, the court's denial of plaintiff's motion “left the parties in limbo where they could neither move forward to trial nor complete the discovery necessary to move forward to trial, thereby frustrating the strong public policy favoring open disclosure to allow the parties to adequately prepare” (361 Broadway Assoc. Holdings, LLC v. Foundations Group I, Inc., 210 A.D.3d 548, 549, 176 N.Y.S.3d 776 [1st Dept. 2022]; see also CPLR 3101[a]).
Thank you for your feedback!
As the largest network of trusted legal brands, we help firms build authority across the platforms consumers and AI systems rely on most. Our network helps attorneys strengthen visibility, credibility, and preference where legal decisions begin.
Docket No: 5427
Decided: December 18, 2025
Court: Supreme Court, Appellate Division, First Department, New York.
Search our directory by legal issue
Enter information in one or both fields (Required)
Harness the power of our directory with your own profile. Select the button below to sign up.
Learn more about FindLaw’s newsletters, including our terms of use and privacy policy.
Get help with your legal needs
FindLaw’s Learn About the Law features thousands of informational articles to help you understand your options. And if you’re ready to hire an attorney, find one in your area who can help.
Search our directory by legal issue
Enter information in one or both fields (Required)