Why Trust This Analysis
This article is part of our ongoing discovery coverage, with 99 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.
Missed the 20-day deadline to challenge a note of issue? Your motion may still be viable. New York courts have repeatedly held that late motions to vacate can succeed when the certificate of readiness contains material misstatements — or when good cause is shown.
Understanding the timing requirements for challenging a note of issue and certificate of readiness is crucial for both plaintiffs and defendants in New York litigation. Generally, parties have only 20 days to file a motion to vacate these important case management documents under CPLR 2211 and court rules. However, as demonstrated in recent appellate decisions, courts may still consider late motions under specific circumstances.
The note of issue and certificate of readiness serve as critical milestones in civil litigation, signaling that a case is ready for trial and discovery is complete. When these documents contain errors or are filed prematurely, parties must act quickly to challenge them. The procedural requirements can be particularly important in personal injury cases where discovery issues may arise unexpectedly.
Need to discuss a discovery or procedural issue on a pending case? The Law Office of Jason Tenenbaum, P.C. handles complex personal injury litigation across Long Island and New York. Call (516) 750-0595 for a consultation.
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.
Jason Tenenbaum’s Analysis:
Sansone v Sansone, 2014 NY Slip Op 00982 (2d Dept. 2014)
“The plaintiff failed to demonstrate that she served her motion, inter alia, to vacate the note of issue and certificate of readiness within 20 days after their service upon her (see CPLR 2211; 22 NYCRR 202.21). Nevertheless, the Supreme Court properly granted the plaintiff’s motion, upon the plaintiff’s showing of good cause, since there were material misstatements of fact in the certificate of readiness, and a number of unforeseen circumstances stalled the completion of discovery (see 22 NYCRR 202.21; Torres v Saint Vincents Catholic Med. Ctrs., 71 AD3d 873; Drapaniotis v 36-08 33rd St. Corp., 288 AD2d 254; Club Italia v Italian Fashion Trading, 268 AD2d 219, 219-220). ”
What is illustrative is the citation to Torres, which states the following: “A motion to vacate the note of issue and certificate of readiness made more than 20 days after their filing will be granted only where “a material fact in the certificate of readiness is incorrect” or upon “good cause shown""
So it appears that a material missatement in the certificate of readiness will allow a tardy motion to vacate note of issue to be made and considered.
Key Takeaway
Even when filed beyond the 20-day deadline, motions to vacate a note of issue may still succeed if the certificate of readiness contains material factual errors or if good cause can be demonstrated. Courts recognize that unforeseen circumstances during discovery may justify late challenges to these case management documents, providing important flexibility in complex litigation scenarios.
Related Articles
- Certificate of readiness that says discovery is outstanding is deemed a nullity
- Notice of Trial stricken
- Late Notice of Trial and standard of law as to Malella
- A plain disaster
- New York No-Fault Insurance Law
Legal Update (February 2026): The procedural requirements and timeframes for challenging notes of issue under CPLR 2211 and court rules may have been modified since 2014 through court rule amendments or updated procedural directives. Additionally, appellate decisions from the past decade may have further refined the standards for “good cause” exceptions to late motion filings. Practitioners should verify current timing requirements and procedural standards with the most recent court rules and case law.
Attorneys: Refer Your Complex Personal Injury Cases
The Law Office of Jason Tenenbaum, P.C. regularly handles personal injury cases involving contested discovery, procedural challenges, and trial-ready litigation across Nassau County, Suffolk County, and all five boroughs. If you have a case that requires experienced trial counsel, we welcome attorney referrals and co-counsel arrangements.
Looking for experienced trial counsel for a personal injury matter? Call (516) 750-0595 or contact us online to discuss referral or co-counsel opportunities.
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 2,600 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.
99 published articles in Discovery
Keep Reading
More Discovery Analysis
FOIL and the Court System's Memos to Judges: NYCLU v OCA (1st Dept 2026)
On September 29, 2026 the First Department upheld an order to release 22 OCA memos to judges under FOIL. What the ruling holds, and what it leaves open.
Oct 3, 2026Litigation 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
Appellate Term Holds CPLR 3212(f) Relief Is Inappropriate Under Three Separate Circumstances
Analysis of Appellate Term decision limiting CPLR 3212(f) relief in three circumstances. Essential guidance for NY civil practice and discovery strategy.
Feb 25, 2010
The interesecton of the Note of Issue and timely summary judgment motion
Analysis of Khan v Macchia case on Note of Issue filing and summary judgment motion deadlines when discovery remains incomplete in NY personal injury litigation.
Oct 10, 2018
Protection of the MRI facilities on medical necessity motions
Medical Arts upheld discovery during a medical-necessity motion. Read the CPLR 3214 stay exception and the limits of this 2015 MRI-provider decision.
Jul 21, 2015
Discovery not necessary to adjudicate merits of EUO no-show defense
Court rules discovery unnecessary when challenging EUO no-show defense in NY no-fault cases. Appellate Term confirms proper mailing establishes valid denial.
May 16, 2013Was 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.
