Singh v City of New York

Singh v City of New York 2009 NY Slip Op 09646 [68 AD3d 1096] December 22, 2009 Appellate Division, Second Department Published by New York State Law Reporting Bureau pursuant to Judiciary Law § 431. As corrected through Wednesday, February 10, 2010

Harminder Singh et al., Appellants,
v
City of New York et al., Respondents. (And Another Title.)

—[*1] Peter Pearson Traub, New York, N.Y., for appellants.

Michael A. Cardozo, Corporation Counsel, New York, N.Y. (Pamela Seider Dolgow, Craig Koster, and Susan Choi-Hausman of counsel), for respondents.

In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, etc., the plaintiffs appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Hurkin-Torres, J.), dated May 20, 2009, which granted that branch of the defendants' motion which, in effect, was to compel them to respond to additional discovery demands regarding the immigration status of the plaintiff Harminder Singh.

Ordered that the order is reversed, on the law, on the facts, and in the exercise of discretion, with costs, and that branch of the defendants' motion which, in effect, was to compel the plaintiffs to respond to additional discovery demands regarding the immigration status of the plaintiff Harminder Singh is denied.

While the Supreme Court may, in its discretion, grant permission to conduct additional discovery after the filing of a note of issue and certificate of readiness where the moving party demonstrates that "unusual or unanticipated circumstances" developed subsequent to the filing which require additional pretrial proceedings to prevent substantial prejudice (see 22 NYCRR 202.21 [d]; Audiovox Corp. v Benyamini, 265 AD2d 135, 138 [2000]; Futersak v Brinen, 265 AD2d 452 [1999]), here, the defendants failed to establish any such unusual or unanticipated circumstances that would warrant the additional post-note of issue discovery they sought (see 22 NYCRR 202.21 [d]; Audiovox Corp. v Benyamini, 265 AD2d 135 [2000]; Futersak v Brinen, 265 AD2d 452 [1999]). The defendants also failed to establish that the denial of their request would cause them actual, substantial prejudice (see Audiovox Corp. v Benyamini, 265 AD2d at 139). Dillon, J.P., Santucci, Florio and Hall, JJ., concur.