Byrne-Ling v City of Ne York 216 NY Slip Op 31223(U) June 28, 216 Supreme Court, Ne York County Docket Number: 15634/212 Judge: Manuel J. Mdez Cases posted ith a "3" idtifier, i.e., 213 NY Slip Op 31(U), are republished from various state and local governmt ebsites. These include the Ne York State Unified Court System's E-Courts Service, and the Bronx County Clerk's office. This opinion is uncorrected and not selected for official publication.
[* FILED: 1] NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 6/28/216 1:31 AM INDEX NO. 15634/212 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 113 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 6/28/216 SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK NEW YORK COUNTY PRESENT: MANUEL J. MENDEZ Justice PART 13 -~=--- MARY BYRNE-LING, -against- CITY OF NEW YORK and RESTANI CONSTRUCTION CORP., Plaintiff, INDEX NO. MOTION DATE MOTION SEQ. NO. MOTION CAL. NO. 15634/212 5-25-216 4 Defdants The folloing papers, numbered 1 to~ ere read on this motion to vacate Note of Issue. PAPERS NUMBERED.. - z < (.!) z u- i== ~ _. ::>....., u.... c J:... ~ u. >...... ::> u.... u Q. < u.._ z... ::?! Notice of Motion/ Order to Sho Cause - Affidavits - Exhibits... 1-3 Ansering Affidavits - Exhibits 4-5 Replying Affidavits 6 Cross-Motion: D Yes X No Upon a reading of the foregoing cited papers, it is Ordered that defdants' motion to vacate the Note of Issue and Certificate of Readiness filed on March 3, 216, is died. This is an action to recover damages for personal injuries sustained by plaintiff on October 19, 211 h she tripped and fell on a curb adjact to the Lincoln Cter Jazz trance to the Time Warner Cter on West 6th Street at Broaday. Plaintiff commced this action by Summons and Complaint dated September 4, 212. Issue as joined by the defdants separately and the parties proceeded ith discovery. Plaintiff previously filed a Note of Issue on June 29, 215. Pursuant to a motion by the Defdants the Note of Issue as vacated by This Court's November 6, 215 Order. A Status Conferce as held before This Court on January 27, 216 (Mot. Exh. I). It as directed that the Defdants ere to provide further discovery demands ithin 2 days, the Plaintiff as to respond ithin 3 days of receipt of the demands, and that Plaintiff's further EBT as to be completed ithin 45 days from Plaintiff's response to the demands. Plaintiff's EBT as to be limited to questions on any medical providers Plaintiff had treated ith since her last EBT in 213, and questions on any ne special damages claims. If there as to be another IME designated, Plaintiff ould appear for the IME ithin 45 days from her EBT, if any. At the very d of This Order, the Plaintiff reserved her rights to object to the demands for a further EBT and/or IME. In accordance ith the January 27, 216 Order, Defdants served Plaintiff on February 9, 216 ith a Notice to Take a Further Deposition of Plaintiff, together ith a Notice to Produce, and a Notice for Discovery and Inspection (Mot. Exh. M) requesting 1 of 4
[* 2] a number of items in response to assertions made by Plaintiff in her Sixth Supplemtal Verified Bill of Particulars dated September 22, 215 (Mot. Exh. L). The requests ere: ( 1) for documts, information, and authorizations to obtain documts related to Plaintiff's claims for lost income, and out-of pocket expses incurred by Plaintiff's hiring of a cattle ranch managemt couple, and the loss of her U.S. Forest grazing rights lease due to her inability to ork because of the injuries she sustained, (2) for the li information as to Medicare and United Healthcare, (3) for a Medicare Authorization containing Plaintiff's Social Security Number as the previous Authorization did not have it and the Authorization as rejected, (4) for Plaintiff to provide the totality of her claimed special damages to date, including idtifying the location and tities that provided treatmt to the Plaintiff as Plaintiff had only provided an itemized list of special damages for the year 213, and has not provided an itemized list for the years 211, 212, 214, 215 and 216. In addition, it is noted on this Order that defdants had not made any formal discovery demands, nor had the parties scheduled a mediation since vacatur of the Note of Issue. On March 28, 216, Plaintiff provided, in response to Defdants' demands: ( 1) a Medical Paymt Summary form from Optum (a health care provider ith United Healthcare) listing additional special damages for treatmt, and stated (as she had done in her past Supplemtal Bill of Particulars, ith the exception of the Fifth Supplemtal Bill of Particulars) that the final amount of the special damages ould be provided in the future h Plaintiff's treatmt ded because her treatmt as ongoing, (2) a HIPAA compliant Medicare Authorization containing Plaintiff's Social Security Number to obtain Plaintiff's records and any and all li amounts, (3) stated that li information for Optum, a division of United Healthcare, as not available because Plaintiff nor her husband, ho as the oner of this insurance policy, ever orked for the federal governmt, (4) stated that Plaintiff as ithdraing her claims for loss of her U.S. Forest Service Grazing Lease and reimbursemt for the hiring of a ranch managemt couple, hereby rdering discovery sought for those claims inapplicable, and lastly, (5) Plaintiff objected to an additional deposition and/or additional IME because she as not claiming any ne injuries. (Mot. Exh. ). Plaintiff filed the Note of Issue and Certificate of Readiness for Trial on March 3, 216. (Mot. Exh. D). Defdants no move for an Order vacating the Note of Issue arguing that discovery is still outstanding. Plaintiff opposes the motion arguing that the Defdants are not titled to vacatur of the Note of Issue because it is the Defdants that have be lax in completing discovery, and otherise all discovery is complete. Defdants contd that the reason for the delay in serving any discovery demands after the first Note of Issue as vacated, as due to the parties agreeing to stay any further discovery pding an agreemt of the parties to go to mediation. Defdants also argue that they are titled to an additional EBT and/or IME of Plaintiff 2 of 4
[* 3] because they ere not the attorney of record during Plaintiff's first EBT, and the Complaint, the Bill of Particulars, nor any of the five Supplemtal Bill of Particulars, or Plaintiff's testimony during her deposition in 213, specify any injuries other than the injury to Plaintiff's right ankle. Hoever, Defdants are of the belief that based upon the exchanged expert information, Plaintiff's experts ill testify to an array of injuries that have caused plaintiff the inability to function, all injuries (ith the exception of the right ankle), and their severity, ere not the subject of previous disclosure. (Expert Information Mot. Exh. K). Defdants also argue that Plaintiff has failed to properly plead her special damages (ith the exception of year 213 provided in Plaintiff's Fifth Supp. BP Mot. Exh. N), and Defdants are titled to further discovery in relation to Plaintiff's ne loss of income claims asserted in her Sixth Supplemtal Bill of Particulars. Plaintiff contds that no ne injuries have be plead (as is evidced by the Complaint, Plaintiff's Bill of Particulars and five Supplemtal Bill of Particulars), that the only injury that has ever be the subject of this litigation is the injury to Plaintiff's right ankle, and that Plaintiff has since ithdran her loss of income claims. Therefore, Plaintiff argues that not only did Plaintiff reserve her right to object to any further EBT or IME, she properly did so in her March 28, 216 responses on the basis that no ne injuries are being claimed, and that the loss of income claims have no be ithdran. Therefore, all major discovery is complete and the Note of Issue as properly filed. "Where a party timely moves to vacate a note of issue, it need sho only that a material fact in the certificate of readiness is incorrect, or that the certificate of readiness fails to comply ith the requiremts of... section [22.21] in some material respect" (Vargas v. Villa Josefa Realty Corp., 28 A.D.3d 389, 39, 815 N.Y.S.2d 3 [1st Dept., 26); see 22 NYCRR 22.21 [e)). Uniform Rule 22.21(e)(1) provides the vehicle for vacating a note of issue and striking a case from the trial caldar. A note of issue and certificate of readiness ill be vacated here there is still extsive discovery to be completed or here the certificate of readiness erroneously states that all discovery is complete (see Carte v. Segall, 134 A.O. 2d 396, 52 N.Y.S. 2d 943 [2"d. Dept. 1987] note of issue vacated here extsive discovery yet to be completed); Ortiz v. Arias, 285 A.O. 2d 39, 727 N.Y.S. 2d 879 [1st. Dept. 21], vacating note of issue that contained erroneous facts including incorrect statemt that discovery had be completed or aived). Vacatur of the Note of Issue and Certificate of Readiness is proper here the defdants demonstrate "unusual or unanticipated" circumstances or "substantial prejudice" sufficit to arrant post-note of issue discovery (Oesario v. SL Gre Managemt LLC, 118 A.D.3d 52987 N.Y.S.2d 151, 152 [ 2"d Dept., 214] citing to, Schroeder v. IESI N.Y. Corp., 24 A.D.3d 18, 85 N.Y.S.2d 79 [1st Dept., 25]; 22 NYCRR 22.21 [d]). 3 of 4
[* 4] All major discovery has be completed. Further, the CPLR provides that claims for continuing special damages and disabilities may be served in a supplemtal bill of particulars ithout leave of court "... at any time, but not less than thirty days prior to trial. Provided hoever that no ne cause of action may be alleged or ne injury claimed and that the other party shall upon sev days notice, be titled to nely exercise any and all rights of discovery but only ith respect to such continuing special damages and disabilities." (CPLR 343). Plaintiff has not plead any ne injuries and has since ithdran her loss of income claims, therefore no further IME or EBT of Plaintiff is arranted. In accordance ith the CPLR, Plaintiff's ability to claim special damages and disabilities is continuing and a failure to fully plead these special damages prior to the Note of Issue being filed is not a basis to refrain from filing the Note of Issue, as the CPLR clearly states that such special damages may be provided for in a Supplemtal Bill of Particulars up to thirty days before trial. The Defdants have not shon any unusual or unanticipated circumstances, nor ould the Defdants suffer any substantial prejudice if vacatur of the Note of Issue is died. Accordingly, it is hereby ORDERED that defdants' motion to vacate the Note of Issue and Certificate of Readiness filed on March 3, 216 is died. Dated: June 28, 216 ENTER: MANUELJ.MENDEZ ~ J.S.C. MANUElJ:MENDEZ J.S.C. Check one: FINAL DISPOSITION X NON-FINAL DISPOSITION Check if appropriate: D DO NOT POST D REFERENCE 4 of 4