JORDAN v. NEW YORK CITY HOUSING AUTHORITY (2025)

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

Linda JORDAN, appellant, v. NEW YORK CITY HOUSING AUTHORITY, respondent.

2023-01901

Decided: January 22, 2025

COLLEEN D. DUFFY, J.P., PAUL WOOTEN, HELEN VOUTSINAS, LOURDES M. VENTURA, JJ.

Harris Keenan & Goldfarb PLLC, New York, NY (Judith Stempler and Jason Steinberg of counsel), for appellant. Cullen and Dykman LLP, New York, NY (Diana Neyman of counsel), for respondent.

DECISION & ORDER

In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, the plaintiff appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Rachel E. Freier, J.), dated January 23, 2023. The order, insofar as appealed from, denied those branches of the plaintiff's motion which were to certify that discovery was complete and for permission to file a note of issue and barred the plaintiff from filing a note of issue until the hearing and determination of a related appeal in this action (see Jordan v. New York City Housing Authority, ––– A.D.3d ––––, –––N.Y.S.3d ––––, 2025 WL 264085 [Appellate Division Docket No. 2023–04921; decided herewith]).

ORDERED that the order is affirmed insofar as appealed from, with costs.

The plaintiff commenced this action against the defendant to recover damages for personal injuries she alleged she sustained when she tripped and fell in 2016 on a sidewalk abutting the defendant's property. Thereafter, the plaintiff moved, inter alia, to certify that discovery was complete and for permission to file a note of issue. The Supreme Court denied those branches of the motion and barred the plaintiff from filing a note of issue until the hearing and determination of a related appeal in this action (see Jordan v. New York City Housing Authority, ––– A.D.3d ––––, ––– N.Y.S.3d ––––, 2025 WL 264085 [Appellate Division Docket No. 2023–04921; decided herewith]). The plaintiff appeals. We affirm insofar as appealed from.

In light of the pendency of a related appeal in this action (see id., ––– A.D.3d ––––, ––– N.Y.S.3d –––– [Appellate Division Docket No. 2023–04921; decided herewith]) involving a discovery issue, the Supreme Court providently exercised its discretion in denying those branches of the plaintiff's motion which were to certify that discovery was complete and for permission to file a note of issue and in barring the plaintiff from filing a note of issue until the hearing and determination of the related appeal in this action (see 22 NYCRR 202.21; Asprou v. Hellenic Orthodox Community of Astoria, 185 A.D.3d 638, 639, 126 N.Y.S.3d 737).

DUFFY, J.P., WOOTEN, VOUTSINAS and VENTURA, JJ., concur.

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