Ikeda v Tedesco, 2010 NY Slip Op 01283 (4th Dept. 2010)
“We reject plaintiff’s contention that, pursuant to CPLR 3402, a party may file a note of issue and certificate of readiness “at any time after issue is first joined . . . .” Pursuant to 22 NYCRR 202.21 (a) and (b), a properly filed note of issue must be accompanied by a certificate of readiness, and there must be “no outstanding requests for discovery” (22 NYCRR 202.21 [b] [8]). Here, plaintiff filed the note of issue and certificate of readiness before she had provided the release in accordance with the [*2]order granting defendants’ motion to compel her to do so. Thus, the court properly granted that part of defendants’ motion to strike the note of issue and certificate of readiness (see 22 NYCRR 202.21 [e]). We agree with plaintiff, however, that the court erred in failing to comply with 22 NYCRR 130-1.2 in imposing the attorney fees as a sanction inasmuch as the court failed to set forth in a written decision “the conduct on which . . . the imposition [of sanctions] is based, the reasons why the court found the conduct to be frivolous, and the reasons why the court found the amount . . . imposed to be appropriate” (see Leisten v Leisten, 309 AD2d 1202, 1203; see also Campbell v Obear, 26 AD3d 877, 878). We therefore modify the order by vacating the award of attorney fees, and we remit the matter to Supreme Court for compliance with 22 NYCRR 130-1.2.”
A sanction hearing for something that happens in so many personal injury actions here in downstate New York? The world of upstate practice.
