The trial court providently exercised its discretion in granting defendants' motion to quash the post-note of issue subpoenas. The circumstances presented do not warrant allowing plaintiff to conduct additional discovery over three months after the filing of the note of issue (22 NYCRR 202.21 [d]). Plaintiff's requests for documents and for depositions of defendants' lawyers and accountants could have been made before the note of issue was filed (see Med Part v Kingsbridge...
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.
