Trial - Note of Issue and Statement of Readiness - Extension to File - Reasonable Excuse for Delay

Disclosure - Scope of Disclosure - Extension of Time to File Notice of Issue - Inability to Access Bank Records

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Emily Morales-Minerva, J.), entered on or about November 18, 2024, which, to the extent appealed from as limited by the briefs, denied plaintiff's motion to extend the deadline for filing the note of issue, unanimously reversed, on the law, the facts, and in the exercise of discretion, with costs, the motion granted, and the deadline for filing of the note of issue extended 90 days from the date of this decision.

Supreme Court improvidently exercised its discretion in denying plaintiff's motion. Plaintiff had good cause for an extension of time, as they demonstrated a reasonable excuse for their delay in providing disclosure—among other things, their 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 (see Estate of Yaron Ungar v Palestinian Auth., 44 AD3d 176, 180-182 [1st Dept 2007]). Furthermore, 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. Nor are defendants prejudiced by an extension of the deadline; indeed, defendants did not oppose plaintiff's motion, and do not oppose plaintiff's appeal now, and in fact have previously expressed their own need for an extension of time to obtain further discovery (see CPLR 2004; Kellogg v All Sts. Hous. Dev. Fund Co., Inc., 146 AD3d 615, 616 [1st Dept 2017]). Under the circumstances, the court's 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 adequately prepare" (361 Broadway Assoc. Holdings, LLC v Foundations Group I, Inc., 210 AD3d 548, 549 [1st Dept 2022]; see also CPLR 3101 [a]). Concur—Kern, J.P., Scarpulla, Friedman, Shulman, Rosado, JJ.