State Farm Fire & Cas. Co. v M. Marin Restoration Inc.

Supreme Court, Richmond County

Decided on May 6, 2026

Index No. 150797/2024

Ronald Castorina, Jr., J.

I. Statement Pursuant to CPLR § 2219 [a]

The following e-filed documents listed on NYSCEF numbered 98-115, 117-118 were read on Motion Sequence No. 005. The following papers were considered in the determination of Defendant M. Marin Restoration Inc.'s motion seeking to vacate the Note of Issue and Certificate of Readiness, strike this action from the trial calendar, and extend the time to move for summary judgment:

Notice of Motion, dated April 13, 2026, the Affirmation of Manuel A. Palaguachi, Esq., dated April 13, 2026, in Support, with the exhibits annexed thereto; Affirmation of Cory M. Barkoff, Esq., dated April 29, 2026, in Opposition; and the Affirmation of Manuel A. Palaguachi, Esq., dated May 4, 2026, in Reply.

II. Findings of Fact

This subrogation action arises from alleged property damage sustained on or about December 22, 2022, at the premises located at 96 Auburn Avenue, Staten Island, New York, for which plaintiff, State Farm Fire and Casualty Company, seeks recovery as subrogee of its insured, Brian Garland. (NY St Cts Filing [NYSCEF] Doc No. 100).

The record reflects that issue was joined on July 8, 2025, when defendant M. Marin Restoration Inc. ("Marin") served and filed its Answer. (NY St Cts Filing [NYSCEF] Doc No. 101). Contemporaneously, Marin served initial discovery demands. (NY St Cts Filing [*2][NYSCEF] Doc No. 102). Thereafter, plaintiff served a Verified Bill of Particulars and responses to combined discovery demands on or about October 24, 2025, including a redacted claim file relating to the subject loss. (NY St Cts Filing [NYSCEF] Doc No. 104).

The parties proceeded with depositions in December 2025. (NY St Cts Filing [NYSCEF] Doc Nos. 105; 106; 107; 108). The insured Brian Garland and Debra Delia appeared for examination before trial on December 11, 2025. (NY St Cts Filing [NYSCEF] Doc Nos. 105; 106). A representative of Marin was deposed on December 15, 2025 (NY St Cts Filing [NYSCEF] Doc No. 107), and a State Farm adjuster was deposed on December 17, 2025 (NY St Cts Filing [NYSCEF] Doc No. 108).

Following the completion of party depositions, Marin served a Second Notice for Discovery and Inspection on January 21, 2026, seeking eleven categories of additional disclosure. (NY St Cts Filing [NYSCEF] Doc No. 109). These demands included, inter alia, unredacted subrogation and claims files relating not only to the subject loss but also to prior incidents at the same premises, contracts relating to remediation work, correspondence between non-parties and defendant, inventory documentation supporting personal property claims, and last known contact information for certain non-parties. (see id).

On January 22, 2026, the parties appeared for a compliance conference before this Court. (NY St Cts Filing [NYSCEF] Doc No. 110). At that time, the Court issued an Order directing plaintiff to provide responses to Marin's Second Notice for Discovery and Inspection within twenty days. (see id). Significantly, at that same appearance, the Court certified the matter as trial-ready and directed plaintiff to file a Note of Issue and Certificate of Readiness within thirty days. (NY St Cts Filing [NYSCEF] Doc No. 111).

Despite the outstanding discovery demands, plaintiff filed the Note of Issue and Certificate of Readiness on or about March 24, 2026, representing therein that "[d]iscovery proceedings now known to be necessary are complete." (NY St Cts Filing [NYSCEF] Doc No. 113).

The record further demonstrates that prior to and following the filing of the Note of Issue, counsel for Marin made repeated good faith efforts to secure compliance with the outstanding discovery demands. Communications were exchanged on February 10, 2026 (NY St Cts Filing [NYSCEF] Doc No. 112), March 31, 2026, and April 3, 2026, wherein plaintiff's counsel acknowledged delays and represented that responses would be forthcoming. (NY St Cts Filing [NYSCEF] Doc No. 114).

On April 2, 2026, plaintiff served responses to the Second Notice for Discovery and Inspection. (NY St Cts Filing [NYSCEF] Doc No. 115). Marin characterizes those responses as palpably deficient, asserting that they consisted primarily of boilerplate objections, claims of privilege, and a failure to produce any additional documents, including a failure to provide a privilege log. (NY St Cts Filing [NYSCEF] Doc No. 99).

Plaintiff, in opposition, does not dispute that disputes remain concerning the scope and adequacy of discovery, but contends that it complied with this Court's directive by serving responses, that all principal discovery, including party depositions, has been completed, and that any remaining issues concern the sufficiency of supplemental responses rather than the absence of discovery. (NY St Cts Filing [NYSCEF] Doc No. 117). Plaintiff further asserts that the Note of Issue was filed pursuant to this Court's Certification Order and therefore cannot be deemed premature. (see id).

[*3]III. Conclusions of Law

Pursuant to 22 NYCRR § 202.21 [e], a party may move to vacate a note of issue and certificate of readiness within twenty days of service upon a showing, by affidavit, in what respects the case is not ready for trial. The Court may grant such relief where it appears that a material fact in the certificate of readiness is incorrect or that the certificate fails to comply with the rule in a material respect.

It is well settled that where a certificate of readiness incorrectly states that all discovery has been completed, vacatur of the note of issue is warranted (see Barnett v DeMian, 207 AD2d 693, [1st Dept 1994]; Frierson v Concourse Plaza Assoc., 189 AD2d 609 [1st Dept 1993]; Spilky v TRW, Inc., 225 AD2d 539 [2d Dept 1996]). The purpose of the readiness rule is to ensure that only those actions in which all preliminary proceedings have been completed and which are actually ready for trial are placed upon the trial calendar, thereby avoiding last-minute adjournments and unnecessary congestion (see Weinstein-Korn-Miller, NY Civ Prac ¶ 3402.10).

However, the rule is not intended to permit vacatur of a note of issue in every instance where a party expresses dissatisfaction with discovery responses. Rather, vacatur is appropriate only where the movant demonstrates that the case is not in fact ready for trial and that the certificate of readiness contains a material misrepresentation (see Reid v Green, 236 AD3d 945 [2d Dept 2025]; Bundhoo v Wendy's, 152 AD3d 734 [2d Dept 2017]). Moreover, "[t]o vacate [a] note of issue, discovery requests must be legitimate and pending, and not resolved or contrived" (see Jablonsky v Nerlich, 189 AD3d 1561 [2d Dept 2020]).

Applying these principles, this Court finds that defendant has failed to meet its burden of demonstrating that the Note of Issue should be vacated. While it is evident from the record that disputes persist concerning the scope, adequacy, and completeness of plaintiff's responses to the Second Notice for Discovery and Inspection, it is equally clear that the principal discovery in this action has been completed. The depositions of all party witnesses have been conducted, and plaintiff has served responses, albeit disputed, to the outstanding demands.

Crucially, this Court itself issued a Certification Order on January 22, 2026, expressly determining that the matter was trial-ready and directing the filing of the Note of Issue. The plaintiff's filing of the Note of Issue was in direct compliance with that Order. Under these circumstances, the Court declines to conclude that the Certificate of Readiness is materially incorrect so as to warrant vacatur.

The gravamen of defendant's application is not that discovery has been wholly ignored, but rather that plaintiff's responses are inadequate and that additional materials should be produced. Such disputes are properly addressed through motion practice to compel disclosure pursuant to CPLR § 3124, rather than by striking the Note of Issue and removing the matter from the trial calendar.

With respect to that branch of the motion seeking an extension of time to move for summary judgment, CPLR § 3212 [a] provides that such motions must be made no later than 120 days after the filing of the Note of Issue, except with leave of court upon a showing of good cause. CPLR § 2004 further authorizes the Court to extend the time fixed by statute upon such terms as may be just and upon good cause shown.

In light of the unresolved disputes concerning disclosure, particularly those relating to documents asserted to bear upon liability and damages, the Court finds that good cause exists to grant a limited extension of time within which to move for summary judgment. However, in [*4]order to preserve the integrity of the trial calendar and prevent undue delay, such extension shall be narrowly circumscribed and final in nature.

IV. Conclusion and Decretal Paragraphs

Accordingly, it is hereby

ORDERED that the branch of defendant M. Marin Restoration Inc.'s motion seeking to vacate the Note of Issue and Certificate of Readiness and to strike this action from the trial calendar is DENIED; and it is further

ORDERED that the branch of the motion seeking an extension of time to move for summary judgment is GRANTED solely to the extent that all parties shall have thirty (30) days from the date of this Decision and Order within which to make any summary judgment motion; and it is further

ORDERED that no further extensions of time shall be granted absent a showing of extraordinary circumstances; and it is further

ORDERED that all other relief requested is DENIED.

This constitutes the Decision and Order of the Court.

Dated: May 6, 2026

Staten Island, New York

HON. RONALD CASTORINA, JR.

JUSTICE OF THE SUPREME COURT