Pandori v. Fortune
| Decision Date | 30 June 1978 |
| Parties | Richard N. PANDORI and Sharon Pandori, Plaintiffs, v. Elaine B. FORTUNE, Diamond Taxi of Schenectady, Inc. and Elsie I. Gagliardi, Defendants. |
| Court | New York Supreme Court |
Gordon, Gordon & Siegel, Schenectady, for plaintiffs.
Francis E. Lehner, Delmar, for defendants Fortune and Diamond Taxi.
Wager, Taylor, Howd, Brearton & Kessler, Troy, for defendant Gagliardi.
Motion by plaintiffs for insurance disclosure pursuant to CPLR 3101(f). Defendants oppose the motion on the ground that the demand by plaintiffs for such disclosure was made after the note of issue and statement of readiness had been filed by the attorneys for plaintiffs. It is the position of defendants that such filing indicates that the case is ready for trial and that, thereafter, no further preliminary proceedings should be allowed.
The Statement of Readiness Rule (22 NYCRR 861.10) was designed to keep off the trial calendar those cases which were not actually ready for trial and, thus, prevent undue calendar congestion (Cerrone v. S'Doia, 11 A.D.2d 350, 352, 206 N.Y.S.2d 95, 97). Too often in the past, cases on the calendar when reached in their regular course were found to be not ready for trial because of the failure to undertake or complete proceedings preliminary to trial. The result was delays and clogged calendars.
In its application, the rule provides that once an action is placed on the calendar, no further preliminary proceedings can be had, except in the case of unusual or unanticipated conditions. The attorney for the filing party is required to state, in writing, that there has been a reasonable opportunity to complete preliminary proceedings or that the parties do not intend to conduct such proceedings as a predicate for the final statement that the case is ready for trial. Safeguards are included in the rule to protect a party against premature filings. In such cases, the affected party may move to strike the note of issue.
The Statement of Readiness Rule is strictly enforced and has been applied to preclude a party from obtaining an examination before trial (Cassidy v. Kolonsky, 37 A.D.2d 880, 325 N.Y.S.2d 145), bills of particulars (Wayne E. Edwards Corp. v. Romas, 36 A.D.2d 789, 319 N.Y.S.2d 84) and other preliminary proceedings (see, cases cited in Mosca v. Pensky, 73 Misc.2d 144, 146-147, 341 N.Y.S.2d 219, 222-223). The reason for strict enforcement of the rule is obvious. One who has filed a statement that the case is ready for trial or any other party who has allowed such a statement to stand without challenge, should not be permitted to come into court at a later date and say that the action is not ready for trial and that further preliminary proceedings are required. Granting relief in such cases, in the absence of unusual or unanticipated conditions, would do violence to the rule and frustrate its purpose.
The considerations which mandate a denial of disclosure in the usual cases,...
To continue reading
Request your trial