Rosenberg & Estis, P.C. v. Bergos, 18 A.D.3d 218 (N.Y. App. Div. 2005). · Go Syfert
Search
Rosenberg & Estis, P.C. v. Bergos, 18 A.D.3d 218 (N.Y. App. Div. 2005). Cases Citing This Book View Copy Cite
9 citation events (9 in the last 25 years) across 2 distinct courts.
Strongest positive: Schiff v. Intersystem S&S Corp. (nysupctnewyork, 2025-03-31)
Top citers, strongest first. 3 distinct citers. How cited ↗
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Schiff v. Intersystem S&S Corp.
N.Y. Sup. Ct., New York Cty. · 2025 · confidence medium
None of the subsequent conference orders—the last of which is from October 2022—reference the exchange of witness information (NYSCEF Doc Nos 41, 75, 108, 124, 130, 133); therefore, plaintiff waived his right to this information from Intersystem (Alvarez v Feola, 140 AD3d 596, 597 [1st Dept 2016] [“defendant waived his right to a medical examination since he ‘willfully refused or simply failed to avail [himself] of the opportunity’ to conduct plaintiff’s medical examination within the deadlines set forth in the preliminary and compliance conference orders”] [quoting Rosenberg & E…
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Peterson v. City of New York
N.Y. App. Div. · 2023 · confidence medium
Furthermore, defendant's failure to timely avail itself of the many opportunities offered to conduct plaintiff's physical examination waived any right it had to additional discovery, since the certificate of readiness correctly represented that all discovery was complete [*2]( Rosenberg & Estis, P.C v Bergos, 18 AD3d 218, 218 [1st Dept 2005]).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Alvarez v. Feola
N.Y. App. Div. · 2016 · confidence medium
Following plaintiff’s disclosure that she had surgery on both shoulders, defendant waived his right to a medical examination since he “willfully refused or simply failed to avail [himself] of the opportunity” to conduct plaintiff’s medical examination within the deadlines set forth in the preliminary and compliance conference orders (.Rosenberg & Estis, P.C. v Bergos, 18 AD3d 218, 218 [1st Dept 2005]; see Colon v Yen Ru Jin, 45 AD3d 359 [1st Dept 2007]).
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
Rosenberg & Estis, P.C.
v.
Michael Bergos
Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York.
May 3, 2005.
18 A.D.3d 218
2005 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4761
Cited by 8 opinions  |  Published

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Leland DeGrasse, J.), entered November 8, 2004, which denied defendants’ motion to vacate the note of issue, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

The record in this attorney fee dispute discloses that defendants willfully refused or simply failed to avail themselves of the opportunity to take plaintiff’s deposition prior to the deadline set forth in the preliminary conference stipulation, and willfully refused to obtain copies of documents that defense counsel had already inspected and tagged for copying. Under these circumstances, defendants’ motion to vacate the note of issue was properly denied since the certificate of readiness correctly represented that defendants had waived any right they had to additional discovery (cf. Munoz v 147 Corp., 309 AD2d 647, 648 [2003]; Ortiz v Arias, 285 AD2d 390 [2001]). Concur— Tom, J.E, Saxe, Friedman, Marlow and Catterson, JJ.