Suphankomut v. Chi-Teh Yu, 66 A.D.3d 1360 (N.Y. App. Div. 2009). · Go Syfert
Suphankomut v. Chi-Teh Yu, 66 A.D.3d 1360 (N.Y. App. Div. 2009). Cases Citing This Book View Copy Cite
G Cite
4 citation events across 1 distinct court.
Strongest positive: Place v. Chaffee-Sardinia Volunteer Fire Co. (nyappdiv, 2016-10-07)
Top citers, strongest first. 3 distinct citers. How cited ↗
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Place v. Chaffee-Sardinia Volunteer Fire Co.
N.Y. App. Div. · 2016 · confidence medium
Here, defendants established that discovery was incomplete when the note of issue and certificate of readiness were filed, and they therefore established that “ ‘a material fact in the certificate of readiness [was] incorrect’ ” (Suphankomut v Chi-Teh Yu, 66 AD3d 1360, 1360 [2009]; see Frena v Colavita Pasta & Olive Oil Corp., 199 AD2d 729, 730 [1993], lv dismissed 83 NY2d 847 [1994]).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Place v. Chaffee-Sardinia Volunteer Fire Co.
N.Y. App. Div. · 2016 · confidence medium
Here, defendants established that discovery was incomplete when the note of issue and certificate of readiness were filed, and they therefore established that “ ‘a material fact in the certificate of readiness [was] incorrect’ ” (Suphankomut v Chi-Teh Yu, 66 AD3d 1360, 1360 [2009]; see Frena v Colavita Pasta & Olive Oil Corp., 199 AD2d 729, 730 [1993], lv dismissed 83 NY2d 847 [1994]).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) DONALD, DARLENE v. AHERN, DEVAN E.
N.Y. App. Div. · 2012 · confidence medium
Because we agree with defendant that discovery was incomplete when the note of issue and certificate of readiness were filed, “ ‘a material fact in the certificate of readiness [was] incorrect’ ” (Suphankomut v Chi-Teh Yu, 66 AD3d 1360, 1360 [2009], quoting 22 NYCRR 202.21 [e]).
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
Timothy Suphankomut, as Administrator of the Estate of Amphan Phetdum
v.
Chi-Teh Yu, M.D.
Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York.
Oct 2, 2009.
66 A.D.3d 1360
Cited by 4 opinions  |  Published

Appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Erie County (Paula L. Feroleto, J.), entered October 3, 2008 in a medical malpractice action. The order, insofar as appealed from, denied defendants’ motions to vacate the note of issue and certificate of readiness and denied defendants’ application to conduct two nonparty depositions.

It is hereby ordered that the order insofar as appealed from is unanimously reversed on the law without costs, the motions are granted and the note of issue and certificate of readiness are vacated, and the second ordering paragraph is vacated.

Memorandum: Supreme Court erred in denying defendants’ motions seeking to vacate the note of issue and certificate of readiness. Defendants sought the relief within 20 days after service of the note of issue and certificate of readiness, and they provided affidavits establishing that discovery was incomplete when the note of issue and certificate of readiness were filed. Thus, “a material fact in the certificate of readiness [was] incorrect” (22 NYCRR 202.21 [e]; see Shoop v Augst, 305 AD2d 1016, 1017 [2003]; see also Aviles v 938 SCY Ltd., 283 AD2d 935 [2001]). We therefore reverse the order insofar as appealed from, grant defendants’ motions and vacate the note of issue and cer[*1361] tificate of readiness, and vacate the second ordering paragraph to permit the further discovery sought by defendants. Present— Hurlbutt, J.E, Centra, Fahey, Fine and Gorski, JJ.