Why Trust This Analysis
This article is part of our ongoing discovery coverage, with 98 published articles analyzing discovery issues across New York State. Attorney Jason Tenenbaum brings 24+ years of hands-on experience to this analysis, drawing from his work on more than 1,000 appeals, over 100,000 no-fault cases, and recovery of over $100 million for clients throughout Nassau County, Suffolk County, Queens, Brooklyn, Manhattan, and the Bronx. For personalized legal advice about how these principles apply to your specific situation, contact our Long Island office at (516) 750-0595 for a free consultation.
Expert Disclosure Deadlines: A Costly Mistake in Discovery
New York’s Civil Practice Law and Rules require parties to identify expert witnesses during the discovery phase of litigation. CPLR 3101(d) specifically mandates that expert information be disclosed in response to proper discovery demands. When attorneys miss these deadlines, the consequences can be severe — as demonstrated in a recent Second Department decision that excluded a plaintiff’s expert entirely.
The timing of expert disclosure becomes particularly critical when parties file their note of issue and certificate of readiness, which signals to the court that discovery is complete. Once this milestone is reached, introducing new experts becomes significantly more difficult without compelling justification.
Jason Tenenbaum’s Analysis:
Lombardi v Alpine Overhead Doors, Inc., 2012 NY Slip Op 01590 (2d Dept. 2012)
Free Consultation · No Fee Unless We Win
Does this apply to your situation?
Every case is different. Get a free, confidential case review from an experienced attorney who can tell you exactly where you stand.
“In opposition, the plaintiff failed to raise a triable issue of fact. Contrary to the plaintiff’s contention, the Supreme Court properly declined to consider his expert affidavit submitted in opposition to the defendant’s motion. The expert was not identified by the plaintiff until after the note of issue and certificate of readiness were filed attesting to the completion of discovery, and the plaintiff did not provide any excuse for failing to identify the expert in response to the defendant’s discovery demands (see CPLR 3101; Kopeloff v Arctic Cat, Inc., 84 AD3d 890, 890-891; Ehrenberg v Starbucks Coffee Co., 82 AD3d 829, 830-831; Gerardi v Verizon N.Y., Inc., 66 AD3d 960, 961).”
Key Takeaway
Courts will not consider expert affidavits when the expert was not properly disclosed during discovery, especially after the note of issue is filed. The plaintiff’s failure to provide any excuse for the delayed disclosure proved fatal to their opposition to summary judgment. This case underscores the importance of timely compliance with discovery obligations under CPLR 3101(d).
Legal Update (February 2026): Since this 2012 post, New York’s discovery rules under CPLR Article 31 have undergone various amendments, including modifications to expert disclosure requirements and timelines. Additionally, appellate decisions may have further clarified or modified the standards for expert exclusion and post-note of issue expert identification. Practitioners should verify current CPLR provisions and recent case law regarding expert disclosure deadlines and sanctions.
Related Articles
Legal Context
Why This Matters for Your Case
New York law is among the most complex and nuanced in the country, with distinct procedural rules, substantive doctrines, and court systems that differ significantly from other jurisdictions. The Civil Practice Law and Rules (CPLR) governs every stage of civil litigation, from service of process through trial and appeal. The Appellate Division, Appellate Term, and Court of Appeals create a rich and ever-evolving body of case law that practitioners must follow.
Attorney Jason Tenenbaum has practiced across these areas for over 24 years, writing more than 1,000 appellate briefs and publishing over 2,353 legal articles that attorneys and clients rely on for guidance. The analysis in this article reflects real courtroom experience — from motion practice in Civil Court and Supreme Court to oral arguments before the Appellate Division — and a deep understanding of how New York courts actually apply the law in practice.
About This Topic
Discovery Practice in New York Courts
Discovery is the pre-trial process through which parties exchange information relevant to the dispute. In New York, discovery practice is governed by CPLR Article 31 and involves depositions, interrogatories, document demands, and physical examinations. Disputes over the scope of discovery, compliance with demands, and sanctions for noncompliance are frequent in both no-fault and personal injury cases. These articles analyze discovery rules, court decisions on discovery disputes, and strategies for effective discovery practice.
98 published articles in Discovery
Keep Reading
More Discovery Analysis
Litigation Funding Disclosure in New York: What Lituma v. Liberty Coca-Cola Means for Both Bars — and for Injured Clients
A NY appellate court allowed defendants to discover third-party litigation funding in a personal injury suit. What Lituma means for both bars and claimants.
Jun 14, 2026
Another Discovery
Appellate Term ruling on discovery objections shows courts won't disturb trial court discretion when defendants fail to timely object within CPLR's 20-day period.
May 22, 2021
EBT's in no fault practice – "laches does not apply"
Queens Chiropractic v Country Wide ruling that time delays don't waive insurance carriers' EBT rights in no-fault cases, contrasting with First Department precedent.
Jun 4, 2009
Correct Note of issue asserting discovery is outstanding not basis for striking Note
Queens Supreme Court ruling allows Note of Issue to stand despite outstanding discovery, raising concerns about proper case management procedures.
Apr 13, 2017
Late motion to strike note of issue can be considered
Court rules that late motions to strike note of issue can still be considered when certificate of readiness contains material misstatements or good cause is shown.
Feb 15, 2014
Who Pays for Discovery Costs in New York? U.S. Bank v GreenPoint and ESI Cost-Shifting
U.S. Bank v GreenPoint: who bears the cost of producing discovery and ESI in New York litigation, and how a producing party can move to shift costs.
Feb 29, 2012Was this article helpful?
Disclaimer: This article is published by the Law Office of Jason Tenenbaum, P.C. for informational and educational purposes only. It does not constitute legal advice, and no attorney-client relationship is formed by reading this content. The legal principles discussed may not apply to your specific situation, and the law may have changed since this article was last updated.
New York law varies by jurisdiction — court decisions in one Appellate Division department may not be followed in another, and local court rules in Nassau County Supreme Court differ from those in Suffolk County Supreme Court, Kings County Civil Court, or Queens County Supreme Court. The Appellate Division, Second Department (which covers Long Island, Brooklyn, Queens, and Staten Island) and the Appellate Term (which hears appeals from lower courts) each have distinct procedural requirements and precedents that affect litigation strategy.
If you need legal help with a discovery matter, contact our office at (516) 750-0595 for a free consultation. We serve clients throughout Long Island (Huntington, Babylon, Islip, Brookhaven, Smithtown, Riverhead, Southampton, East Hampton), Nassau County (Hempstead, Garden City, Mineola, Great Neck, Manhasset, Freeport, Long Beach, Rockville Centre, Valley Stream, Westbury, Hicksville, Massapequa), Suffolk County (Hauppauge, Deer Park, Bay Shore, Central Islip, Patchogue, Brentwood), Queens, Brooklyn, Manhattan, the Bronx, Staten Island, and Westchester County. Prior results do not guarantee a similar outcome.
