SARANTE v. COURTLANDT DEVELOPMENT LLC (2026)

Supreme Court, Appellate Division, First Department, New York.

Jose SARANTE, Plaintiff–Respondent, v. COURTLANDT DEVELOPMENT LLC, et al., Defendants–Appellants
A & A Building Consultants, Inc., Defendant. Courtlandt Development LLC, Third–Party Plaintiff–Appellant, v. Gold Lion Steel LLC, Third–Party Defendant–Appellant.
AB Capstone Builders Corp., Second Third–Party Plaintiff–Appellant, v. Gold Lion Steel LLC, Second Third–party Defendant–Appellant.

Index Nos. 27096 /19

Decided: October 15, 2026

Manzanet–Daniels, J.P., Shulman, Rodriguez, Higgitt, Rosado, JJ.

Gallardo Levin Reiter & Rogers, LLP, Jericho (Jenna L. Fierstein of counsel), for Courtlandt Development LLC and AB Capstone Builders Corp., appellants. Gerber Ciano Kelly Brady LLP, Garden City (Brendan T. Fitzpatrick of counsel), for Gold Lion Steel LLC, appellant. Pollack, Pollack, Isaac & DeCicco, LLP, New York (Brian J. Isaac of counsel), for respondent.

Order, Supreme Court, Bronx County (Shawn T. Kelly, J.), entered July 21, 2025, which, to the extent appealed from as limited by the briefs, denied defendants' motion to compel plaintiff to submit to a further deposition, and order, same court and Justice, entered on or about November 19, 2025, which granted defendants' motion for leave to renew their motion to compel and, upon renewal, adhered to the prior determination, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

Supreme Court providently exercised its discretion in denying defendants' motion to compel a further deposition of plaintiff after the note of issue was filed (see Uniform Rules for Trial Cts [22 NYCRR] § 202.21[d] ). The court reasonably determined that defendants failed to demonstrate unusual and unanticipated circumstances warranting post-note of issue discovery based on the unproven allegations of fraud in unrelated RICO actions against plaintiff's two treating physicians, absent any evidence of misconduct by plaintiff or his attorney in this case (see Linares v. City of New York, 233 AD3d 479, 480 [1st Dept 2024]; see also Perdomo v. 361 E. Realty Assoc. LLC, 246 AD3d 541, 542 [1st Dept 2026] ).

The court properly determined that Franco v. 800 E 173 LLC (240 AD3d 446, 446–447 [1st Dept 2025] ) did not constitute a change in law that would change the prior determination (CPLR 2221[e][2] ). As plaintiff contends, Franco was a fact-specific application of settled principles governing motions to compel. Thus, the court providently adhered to its prior determination.

Was this helpful?

Why was this helpful?

Easy to understand

Solved my problem

Other

Why was this not helpful?

Missing the information I need

Too complicated / too many steps

Out of date

Other

Thank you for your feedback!

Trusted by Consumers. Recognized by AI.

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.

Explore the Network