SF Consultants, LLC v. 28 West Group Corp. et al.
Attorneys and Parties
Brief Summary
Civil procedure—extension of note-of-issue filing deadline due to discovery delays.
The Supreme Court denied plaintiff’s motion to extend the deadline to file the note of issue.
The denial of the motion to extend the note-of-issue deadline; the Appellate Division granted a 90-day extension from the date of its decision.
Plaintiff demonstrated good cause, including a reasonable excuse for delayed disclosure (inability to access bank records locked due to an unrelated fraud) and good-faith efforts to resolve discovery; the delays were not willful, defendants showed no prejudice, did not oppose the motion or appeal, and themselves sought additional time—warranting relief under New York Civil Practice Law and Rules (CPLR) 2004 [permits courts to extend the time fixed by statute, rule, or court order upon good cause shown] and consistent with the policy of full disclosure under CPLR 3101(a) [requires full disclosure of all matter material and necessary].
Background
In this civil action, discovery was hampered when plaintiff’s bank records became inaccessible due to a fraud-related lock, and both sides encountered legitimate difficulties obtaining discovery. Plaintiff moved to extend the note-of-issue filing deadline to complete discovery. Defendants did not oppose and indicated they also needed more time for discovery.
Lower Court Decision
The Supreme Court, New York County (Justice Emily Morales-Minerva), denied plaintiff’s motion to extend the note-of-issue filing deadline.
Appellate Division Reversal
The Appellate Division unanimously reversed, granted the motion, and extended the note-of-issue filing deadline by 90 days from December 18, 2025. The court found good cause, lack of willfulness, and absence of prejudice, noting that denying an extension left the parties unable to proceed to trial or complete necessary discovery, contrary to New York’s strong policy favoring open disclosure (citing 361 Broadway Assoc. Holdings, LLC v Foundations Group I, Inc., Estate of Ungar ex rel. Strachman v Palestinian Auth., and Kellogg v All Saints Hous. Dev. Fund Co., Inc.; and relying on CPLR 2004 and CPLR 3101(a)).
Legal Significance
Reaffirms that, under CPLR 2004, courts should grant extensions of procedural deadlines upon a showing of good cause—especially where delays arise from legitimate discovery obstacles, there is diligence and good-faith effort, and no prejudice to the opposing party—consistent with the liberal disclosure policy of CPLR 3101(a).
New York courts will extend note-of-issue deadlines when delays stem from bona fide discovery issues, the movant acted diligently and in good faith, and the opposing party is not prejudiced, particularly where the motion is unopposed and both sides need more time.