Servais v Silk Nail Corp.

Servais v Silk Nail Corp. 2012 NY Slip Op 04840 Decided on June 14, 2012 Appellate Division, First Department Published by New York State Law Reporting Bureau pursuant to Judiciary Law § 431. This opinion is uncorrected and subject to revision before publication in the Official Reports.

Decided on June 14, 2012
Andrias, J.P., Friedman, Sweeny, Manzanet-Daniels, Román, JJ.
7953N 112278/10

[*1]Karly Servais, et al., Plaintiffs-Respondents,

v

Silk Nail Corp., Defendant-Appellant, Charming Nails Inc., et al., Defendants.




Law Offices of Charles J. Siegel, New York (Robert S. Cypher
of counsel), for appellant.
The Law Firm of Allen L. Rothenberg, New York (Scott J.
Rothenberg of counsel), for respondents.

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Joan M. Kenney, J.), entered November 16, 2011, which, insofar as appealed from, in this action for personal injuries, denied defendant Silk Nail Corp.'s motion to vacate the note of issue and certificate of readiness, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

Supreme Court properly denied Silk Nail Corp.'s motion because its answer had been stricken by the court's prior order. Accordingly, Silk Nail Corp. was not entitled to any further discovery (see Hall v Penas, 5 AD3d 549 [2004]), including discovery "in preparation for an appearance at inquest" (Yeboah v Gaines Serv. Leasing, 250 AD2d 453, 454 [1998]; see Gray v Jaeger, 57 AD3d 303 [2008])). Silk Nail Corp.'s attempt to relitigate the merits of the order striking its answer is improper as no appeal was taken from that order, and the time in which to seek reargument or to take an appeal from that order has
long since lapsed (CPLR 2221[d][3]; 5513).

THIS CONSTITUTES THE DECISION AND ORDER
OF THE SUPREME COURT, APPELLATE DIVISION, FIRST DEPARTMENT.

ENTERED: JUNE 14, 2012

CLERK