Plaintiffs commenced this action against defendant in April of 2010. On November 3, 2010, the parties appeared in Part 2 for a preliminary discovery conference. In the conference, the court set a deposition date of January 25, 2011; the same paragraph indicates that no adjournments were permissible without court approval. The disclosure deadline in the order was March 14, 2011 and the Note of Issue deadline of March 21, 2011. Paragraph 7 of the order sets forth the Part's directive to the parties regarding discovery issues:

Before making any motions, as soon as a disclosure problem arises, and before the end date for discovery, the affected party must call the part and arrange for a conference (646-386-3852). Failure to comply with this requirement waives all pending and future discovery absent good cause. [*2]

(emphasis supplied). The court requires the parties themselves to write in the requirement to make sure that they pay attention to it. Based on the affirmation in support, it does not appear that movant made any attempts either to obtain any discovery, conduct the depositions, or obtain Court assistance in this regard.

In March 2011, plaintiffs filed the Note of Issue. The following month, defendant made this motion to vacate the Note of Issue, contending that discovery is not complete. In particular, it argued, depositions have not been held. Movant sought an end date for disclosure of July 3, 2011. The motion was adjourned in the submissions part on numerous occasions, and was finally submitted to this Part, without opposition, on July 12, 2011 — 9 days after the requested deadline.

The court denies the motion. As stated, there is no indication that movant ever complied with the court order and contacted the court regarding the discovery problems it details in its papers. Moreover, the motion does not explain whether good cause existed justifying this omission. Thus, under the terms of the preliminary conference order, the parties have waived the right to seek court assistance with the discovery process. Movant's primary argument — that the timetable was too short and should be supplanted by another, lengthier one — does not justify its failure to read and comply with the terms of the order it has annexed.

In addition, movant's good faith affirmation is completely inadequate. Under NYCRR 202.7, an affirmation of good faith must accompany all discovery motions; subsection (c) of the rule provides that this affirmation must "indicate the time, place and nature of the consultation and the issues discussed and any resolutions, or shall indicate good cause why no such conferral with counsel for opposing parties was held." In the absence of a good faith affirmation, the court must deny the motion. See Fulton v. Allstate Ins. Co., 14 AD3d 380, 382, 788 N.Y.S.2d 349, 351 (1st Dept. 2005). Denial of the motion is also appropriate where the motion is insufficiently detailed, does not show that the movant tried to obtain ordered discovery prior to initiating the motion or is otherwise inadequate. See, e.g,, Chervin v. Mercura, 28 AD3d 600, 602, 813 N.Y.S.2d 746, 748 (2nd Dept. 2006). An affirmation that does not show the movant attempted to obtain discovery that was previously ordered or scheduled is inadequate. See, e.g., Tine v. Courtview Owners Corp., 40 AD3d 966, 967, 838 N.Y.S.2d 92, 93 (2nd Dept. 2007). In particular, the First Department has found noncompliance with Rule 202.7 when a party resorts to motion practice directly after any alleged failure to comply with the preliminary conference order. Barber v. Ford Motor Co., 250 A.D. 552, 552-53, 673 N.Y.S.2d 642, 643 (1st Dept. 1998). Instead, the aggrieved party should first attempt to resolve the disputes with the other party or parties. Id. Under this plethora of precedent, movant's affirmation — which states only that it was required to make the motion in order to vacate the Note of Issue, and which, like the accompanying affirmation, does not indicate that movant ever attempted to communicate with its adversary in an attempt to resolve any discovery issues — mandates denial of the motion.

Finally, if these reasons were insufficient, the motion requests an extension of the deadline until July 3, 2011, but was not submitted to the Court until July 12. As the period in question has expired, the application is moot.

For the reasons stated above, therefore, it is

ORDERED that the motion is denied. [*3]

Louis B. York, J.S.C.