Opinion
October 1, 1993
Appeal from the Supreme Court, Erie County, Wolfgang, J.
Present — Denman, P.J., Callahan, Balio, Boomer and Boehm, JJ.
Order unanimously reversed on the law with costs and motion denied. Memorandum: This Court has repeatedly stated that, absent special, unusual or extraordinary circumstances spelled out factually, the motion court lacks discretion to permit further discovery after the note of issue and statement of readiness have been filed (see, e.g., Laudico v. Sears, Roebuck Co., 125 A.D.2d 960, 961; Gray v. Crouse-Irving Mem. Hosp., 107 A.D.2d 1038, 1039-1040; Niagara Falls Urban Renewal Agency v. Pomeroy Real Estate Corp., 74 A.D.2d 734, appeal dismissed 50 N.Y.2d 842). The record is devoid of evidence of special or unusual circumstances, and Supreme Court should have denied defendant's untimely request for further discovery.