Petitioner's failure to file a timely note of issue should not have served as a basis for the court's denial of the motion to restore. There is no indication in the record that the second note of issue, filed August 23, 2000, was rejected for petitioner's failure to file it in a timely fashion. Moreover, respondent never moved to strike the note of issue at any time after it was filed
Let's get started
Welcome to the leading source of independent legal reporting
Sign on now to see your case.
Or view more than 10 million decisions and orders.
- Updated daily.
- Uncompromising quality.
- Complete, Accurate, Current.