Opinion
11-16-2017
AH BEE PUA, Plaintiff–Respondent, v. Yuen Fai M. LAM, et al., Defendants, C & H Herb Shop, Inc., Defendant–Appellant.
Milber Makris Plousadis & Seiden, LLP, Woodbury (Lorin A. Donnelly of counsel), for appellant. Sacco & Fillas, LLP, Astoria (Richard Schirmer of counsel), for respondent.
Milber Makris Plousadis & Seiden, LLP, Woodbury (Lorin A. Donnelly of counsel), for appellant.
Sacco & Fillas, LLP, Astoria (Richard Schirmer of counsel), for respondent.
Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Joan M. Kenney, J.), entered on or about September 28, 2016, which denied defendant C & H Herb Shop, Inc.'s motion to, among other things, vacate the note of issue and extend its time to make summary judgment motions to 120 days following the completion of discovery, unanimously reversed, on the law, on the facts, and in the exercise of discretion, and the motion granted, with costs.
When, as in this case, statements in a certificate of readiness concerning completion of discovery are incorrect or blatantly false, a motion to strike the note of issue should be granted (see e.g. Cromer v. Yellen, 268 A.D.2d 381, 702 N.Y.S.2d 277 [1st Dept.2000] ). Plaintiff's contention that the motion has been mooted by the completion of most discovery is based on representations concerning subsequent matters, not in the appellate record, and of which judicial notice cannot be taken (see Walker v. City of New York, 46 A.D.3d 278, 847 N.Y.S.2d 173 [1st Dept.2007] ). In any event, plaintiff acknowledges that discovery remains outstanding.We have considered plaintiff's remaining contentions and find them unavailing.
RENWICK, J.P., MANZANET–DANIELS, ANDRIAS, KERN, OING, JJ., concur.