Key Takeaway
Court allows post-note of issue discovery without vacating the note, clarifying when additional discovery is appropriate after filing the note of issue.
In New York civil litigation, filing a note of issue marks a critical milestone that signals a case is ready for trial. This filing typically closes the discovery phase, but courts sometimes face the challenging question of whether to permit additional discovery after this point. The decision often hinges on balancing the need for complete information against the potential for prejudice and delay.
The timing of discovery requests can significantly impact litigation strategy. When parties seek discovery after filing their note of issue, courts must carefully evaluate whether such requests are justified or merely dilatory tactics. This evaluation becomes particularly complex when motions for summary judgment are pending, as incomplete discovery can undermine the court’s ability to properly adjudicate these dispositive motions.
Jason Tenenbaum’s Analysis:
Cuprill v Citywide Towing & Auto Repair Servs., 2017 NY Slip Op 02729 (1st Dept. 2017)
It is such a murky area – when is post note of issue discovery appropriate?
“Contrary to plaintiff’s argument, defendants did not seek, and the motion court did not order, vacatur of the note of issue. Trial courts are authorized, as a matter of discretion, to permit post-note of issue discovery without vacating the note of issue, so long as neither party will be prejudiced.”
Key Takeaway
The Cuprill decision clarifies that courts possess discretionary authority to allow discovery after a note of issue is filed without requiring vacatur of that note. The critical test is whether either party would suffer prejudice from the additional discovery. This flexibility helps courts balance case management efficiency with the fundamental need for adequate fact-finding in civil litigation.
