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.
Anastasia Gouzos ANTHOULIS, appellant, v. Betty MASTOROS, et al., respondents.
In an action, inter alia, to recover damages for fraud, the plaintiff appeals (1) from an order of the Supreme Court, Westchester County (Rudolph, J.), dated January 18, 2006, which, among other things, certified that all discovery was complete and directed her to file a note of issue within 20 days, and (2) from an order of the same court dated March 15, 2006, which denied her motion for an extension of time to complete discovery and directed her to file a note of issue within 20 days.
ORDERED that the appeal from the order dated January 18, 2006, is dismissed, as that order (1) was superseded by the order dated March 15, 2006, and (2) did not decide a motion made on notice so as to be appealable as of right (see CPLR 5701[a][2] ), and leave to appeal has not been granted (see CPLR 5701[a] ); and it is further,
ORDERED that the order dated March 15, 2006, is reversed, on the law and in the exercise of discretion, the order dated January 18, 2006, is vacated, the motion is granted, and the time for the plaintiff to complete outstanding discovery is extended until 60 days after service upon her of a copy of this decision and order; and it is further,
ORDERED that one bill of costs is awarded to the plaintiff.
Under the circumstances, the Supreme Court should have granted the plaintiff's motion for an extension of time to complete discovery (cf., Ramachandra v. Gelco Corp., 13 A.D.3d 510, 510-511, 787 N.Y.S.2d 107; compare Dhaliwal v. Long Boat Taxi, 305 A.D.2d 449, 758 N.Y.S.2d 819; Vitello v. JAM Installers, 264 A.D.2d 774, 695 N.Y.S.2d 387). Moreover, it was improper for the Supreme Court to direct in the order dated March 15, 2006, that the complaint would be dismissed without further order of the court if the plaintiff did not file a note of issue within 20 days. Pre-note-of-issue cases can be dismissed for want of prosecution only if the statutory preconditions for such dismissal are met (see CPLR 3216; Travis v. Cuff, 28 A.D.3d 749, 750, 814 N.Y.S.2d 681). Here, those statutory preconditions were not met.
Thank you for your feedback!
A free source of state and federal court opinions, state laws, and the United States Code. For more information about the legal concepts addressed by these cases and statutes visit FindLaw's Learn About the Law.
Decided: January 09, 2007
Court: Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Second 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)