Supreme Court improvidently exercised its discretion in denying plaintiff's motion to extend time for filing the note of issue. Plaintiff had good cause for an extension of time, demonstrating a reasonable excuse for the delay in providing disclosure, the inability to access bank records that had been locked because of an unrelated fraud, and good-faith efforts to resolve discovery disputes before proceeding to trial. The delays giving rise to the requested extension did not arise from willfulness in missing deadlines, but from legitimate difficulties encountered by both sides during discovery. Defendants did not oppose plaintiff's motion and they do not oppose plaintiff's appeal, and they had expressed their own need for an extension of time to obtain further discovery. The denial of plaintiff's motion left the parties in limbo where they could neither move forward to trial nor complete the discovery necessary to move forward to trial, thereby frustrating the strong public policy favoring open disclosure to allow the parties to prepare for trial. Motion granted.
SF Consultants, LLC v. 28 W. Group Corp., NY Slip Op 07122 (1st Dep't December 18, 2025)
