Opinion
No. 2020-02404 Index No. 6059/16
12-28-2022
C Castle Group Corp., et al., respondents, v. Herzfeld & Rubin, P.C., appellant, et al., defendants.
London Fischer LLP, New York, NY (Jason M. Myers and Thomas A. Leghorn of counsel), for appellant. The Greenberg Law Firm, LLP, Purchase, NY (Rebecca Greenberg of counsel), for respondents.
London Fischer LLP, New York, NY (Jason M. Myers and Thomas A. Leghorn of counsel), for appellant.
The Greenberg Law Firm, LLP, Purchase, NY (Rebecca Greenberg of counsel), for respondents.
VALERIE BRATHWAITE NELSON, J.P., LARA J. GENOVESI, DEBORAH A. DOWLING, HELEN VOUTSINAS, JJ.
DECISION & ORDER
In an action to recover damages for legal malpractice, the defendant Herzfeld & Rubin, P.C., appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Kevin J. Kerrigan, J.), dated December 18, 2019. The order granted the plaintiffs' motion to vacate the note of issue and certificate of readiness.
ORDERED that the order is affirmed, with costs.
"Within 20 days after service of a note of issue and certificate of readiness, any party to the action or special proceeding may move to vacate the note of issue, upon affidavit showing in what respects the case is not ready for trial, and the court may vacate the note of issue if it appears that a material fact in the certificate of readiness is incorrect, or that the certificate of readiness fails to comply with the requirements of this section in some material respect.... After such period, except in a tax assessment review proceeding, no such motion shall be allowed except for good cause shown" (Uniform Rules for Trial Cts [22 NYCRR] § 202.21[e]). To satisfy the requirement of "good cause," the party seeking vacatur must "demonstrate that unusual or unanticipated circumstances developed subsequent to the filing of the note of issue and certificate of readiness requiring additional pretrial proceedings to prevent substantial prejudice" (Utica Mut. Ins. Co. v P.M.A. Corp., 34 A.D.3d 793, 794; see Reardon v Macy's, Inc., 191 A.D.3d 712, 714). Under the circumstances presented, the Supreme Court providently exercised its discretion in granting the plaintiffs' motion to vacate the note of issue and certificate of readiness (see Sansone v Sansone, 114 A.D.3d 748, 749; Torres v Saint Vincents Catholic Med. Ctrs., 71 A.D.3d 873).
BRATHWAITE NELSON, J.P., GENOVESI, DOWLING and VOUTSINAS, JJ., concur.