Court Opinion

ID: 9958777
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2024-04-09 20:11:38.482238+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T08:17:34.626070
License: Public Domain

Cortorreal v New York Presbyt. Hosp.
               2024 NY Slip Op 31068(U)
                     March 28, 2024
           Supreme Court, New York County
        Docket Number: Index No. 800173/2011
                  Judge: John J. Kelley
Cases posted with a "30000" identifier, i.e., 2013 NY Slip
 Op 30001(U), are republished from various New York
 State and local government sources, including the New
  York State Unified Court System's eCourts Service.
 This opinion is uncorrected and not selected for official
                       publication.
                                                                                                                     INDEX NO. 800173/2011
  NYSCEF DOC. NO. 43                                                                                           RECEIVED NYSCEF: 03/28/2024

                                   SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK
                                             NEW YORK COUNTY
            PRESENT:             HON. JOHN J. KELLEY                                             PART                              56M
                                                                                      Justice
            ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------X   INDEX NO.          800173/2011
             ANTONIO CORTORREAL, as Administrator of the
             Estate of JULIA VELEZ, deceased, and ANTONIO                                        MOTION DATE         11/08/2023
             CORTORREAL, individually,
                                                                                                 MOTION SEQ. NO.         006
                                                         Plaintiff,

                                                 -v-
             NEW YORK PRESBYTERIAN HOSPITAL, RALPH LAUREN
             CENTER FOR CANCER CARE AND PREVENTION,
                                                                                                   DECISION + ORDER ON
             MEMORIAL SLOAN KETTERING CANCER CENTER, and
             JOHN DOES 1-10, INTENDING TO DESIGNATE                                                      MOTION
             PHYSICIANS, NURSES, AND STAFF AFFILATED WITH
             OR EMPLOYED BY THE NAMED DEFENDANTS,

                                                         Defendants.
            ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------X

            The following e-filed documents, listed by NYSCEF document number (Motion 006) 18, 19, 20, 21, 22,
            23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40, 41, 42
                                                                     VACATE/STRIKE - NOTE OF ISSUE/JURY
            were read on this motion to/for                             DEMAND/FROM TRIAL CALENDAR          .

                      In this action to recover damages for medical malpractice, the defendant New York

            Presbyterian Hospital (NYPH) moves pursuant to 22 NYCRR 202.21(e) to vacate the note of

            issue and certificate of readiness and, if that branch of the motion is denied, for an extension of

            time within which to move for summary judgment. The defendant Ralph Lauren Center for

            Cancer Care and Prevention (RLC) separately moves, in papers erroneously denominated as a

            notice of cross motion, for the same relief. The plaintiff opposes both motions. NYPH’s motion

            is granted only to the extent that, on or before May 23, 2024, and while the action remains on

            the trial calendar, the plaintiff shall produce his decedent’s adult children for nonparty

            depositions, and the deadline for all of the defendants to move for summary judgment is

            extended until June 28, 2024. NYPH’s motion is otherwise denied. Although RLC’s deadline

             800173/2011 VELEZ, JULIA vs. NEW YORK PRESBYTERIAN HOSPITAL                                             Page 1 of 5
             Motion No. 006

                                                                           1 of 5
[* 1]
                                                                                                     INDEX NO. 800173/2011
  NYSCEF DOC. NO. 43                                                                        RECEIVED NYSCEF: 03/28/2024

            for moving for summary judgment thus also is extended to June 28, 2024, RLC’s separate

            motion is otherwise denied as untimely.

                   In the most recent status conference order issued by the court, dated December 2,

            2022, this court reicted that its previous May 18, 2022 status conference order had not been

            complied with, as nonparty depositions remained outstanding. In that December 2, 2022 order,

            the court directed that the nonparty depositions of the decedent’s adult children be completed

            on or before March 1, 2023. It also ordered that “EBT of NON PARTY Joseph Yoe is scheduled

            for 12/20/22” and that the “EBT of NON PARTY Sitaram Pillarisetty is being scheduled with

            Kevin Natale, Law Offices of Benvenuto & Slattery,” but it did not fix a date for that deposition.

            The court directed the plaintiff to file the note of issue on or before July 31, 2023.

                   Dr. Yoe’s deposition was conducted on December 20, 2022. According to the plaintiff,

            although he was ready, willing, and able to produce his decedent’s adult children for a

            deposition on or before March 1, 2023, the defendants never contacted his attorney to schedule

            them. The parties prepared and submitted a proposed status conference order on March 16,

            2023, which, however, was never signed by the court. In that proposed order, the parties had

            agreed that Dr. Pillarisetty’s deposition would be conducted on April 26, 2023, while the

            decedent’s children would be deposed on June 15, 2023. Dr. Pillarisetty’s deposition was

            conducted on April 27, 2023. According to the plaintiff, although he again was ready, willing,

            and able to produce his decedent’s adult children for a deposition on or before June 15, 2023,

            the defendants again never contacted his attorney to schedule those depositions. On July 31,

            2023, the plaintiff filed the note of issue, even though the depositions of his decedent’s adult

            children had not been conducted.

                   The deadline for filing a note of issue may always be extended by the court upon a

            proper showing (see CPLR 2004; Ryskin v Corniel, 181 AD3d 742, 743-744 [2d Dept 2020]).

            Here, the parties had submitted a proposed status conference order for the court’s review and

            approval on March 16, 2023, but, due to an administrative error, the court did not sign it. Had
             800173/2011 VELEZ, JULIA vs. NEW YORK PRESBYTERIAN HOSPITAL                             Page 2 of 5
             Motion No. 006

                                                           2 of 5
[* 2]
                                                                                                   INDEX NO. 800173/2011
  NYSCEF DOC. NO. 43                                                                       RECEIVED NYSCEF: 03/28/2024

            the court signed and issued that order, it would have extended the note of issue filing deadline.

            That said, a court may vacate a note of issue where, as here, it appears that a material fact set

            forth therein, i.e., the representation that discovery is complete, is incorrect (see 22 NYCRR

            202.21[e]; Rivers v Birnbaum, 102 AD3d 26 [2d Dept 2012]; Gomes v Valentine Realty LLC, 32

            AD3d 699 [1st Dept 2006]; Herbert v Sivaco Wire Corp., 1 AD3d 144 [1st Dept 2003]). “[A] note

            of issue should be vacated when it is based upon a certificate of readiness that contains

            erroneous facts” (Cromer v Yellen, 268 AD2d 381, 381 [1st Dept 2000]). Nonetheless, where,

            as here, discovery is nearly completed, “[a] court, in its discretion, may allow post-note of issue

            discovery without vacating the note of issue as long as prejudice to either party would not result”

            (WVH Hous. Dev. Fund Corp. v Brooklyn Insulation & Soundproofing, Inc., 193 AD3d 523, 523

            [1st Dept 2021]; see Samuelsen v Wollman Rink Operations, LLC, 196 AD3d 408, 408-409 [1st

            Dept 2021] [permitting defendant to conduct IME while action remained on the trial calendar]).

            Such an exercise of discretion is particularly apt in the instant action, where this court, as a

            dedicated medical malpractice part, controls its own trial calendar and the scheduling of jury

            selection in actions that have been assigned to it.

                   RLC’s application was not a proper cross motion because it did not seek relief against a

            moving party; instead, its motion was, in effect, a separate motion seeking relief against a

            nonmoving party (see CPLR 2215; Asiedu v Lieberman, 142 AD3d 858, 858 [1st Dept 2016];

            Kershaw v Hospital for Special Surgery, 114 AD3d 75, 88 [1st Dept 2013]; Guzetti v City of New

            York, 32 AD3d 234 [1st Dept 2006]; Gaines v Shell-Mar Foods, Inc., 21 AD3d 986 [2d Dept

            2005]; Sheehan v Marshall, 9 AD3d 403, 404 [2d Dept 2004]; Lucheux v William Macklowe Co.,

            LLC, 2017 NY Slip Op 31044[U], 2017 NY Misc LEXIS 187 [Sup Ct, N.Y. County, May 11,

            2017]). CPLR 2214(b) requires such a separate motion to be made on at least eight days’

            notice. The mislabeling of a motion as a cross motion, however, may treated as a “technical”

            defect to be disregarded, particularly where the nonmoving party does not object and the

            consideration of the application results in no prejudice to the nonmoving party (see Sheehan v
             800173/2011 VELEZ, JULIA vs. NEW YORK PRESBYTERIAN HOSPITAL                           Page 3 of 5
             Motion No. 006

                                                           3 of 5
[* 3]
                                                                                                  INDEX NO. 800173/2011
  NYSCEF DOC. NO. 43                                                                      RECEIVED NYSCEF: 03/28/2024

            Marshall, 9 AD3d at 404), and where, as here, the moving party made its application more than

            eight days prior to the return date, thus giving the plaintiff ample opportunity to be heard on the

            merits (see Daramboukas v Samlidis, 84 AD3d 719, 721 [2d Dept 2011]; Matter of Jordan v City

            of New York, 38 AD3d 336, 338 [1st Dept 2007]; Della-Mura v White Plains Hosp. Med. Ctr.,

            2022 NY Slip Op 31085[U], *3, 2022 NY Misc LEXIS 1697, *3-4 [Sup Ct, N.Y. County, Mar. 31,

            2022] [Kelley, J.]). Nonetheless, although RLC’s “cross motion” may be considered as a

            properly noticed separate motion (see Matter of Jordan v City of New York, 38 AD3d at 338), it

            nonetheless was untimely. 22 NYCRR 202.21(e) requires that a motion to vacate a note of

            issue must be made within 20 days after the note of issue was served and filed. Since the

            plaintiff served and filed the note of issue on July 31, 2023, any motion to vacate the note of

            issue was required to have been made no later than August 21, 2023, the first business day

            after the lapse of that 20-day period (see General Construction Law §§ 20, 25-a). RLC’s

            motion, which was made on September 8, 2023, was thus untimely.

                   Nonetheless, inasmuch as the court is permitting all of the defendants to conduct the

            deposition of the decedent’s adult children, and extending the deadline for all defendants to

            move for summary judgment, RLC will suffer no prejudice by the denial of its motion.

                   Accordingly, it is,

                   ORDERED that the motion of the defendant New York Presbyterian Hospital is granted

            only to the extent that, on or before May 23, 2024, and while the action remains on the trial

            calendar, the plaintiff shall produce his decedent’s adult children for nonparty depositions, and

            the deadline for all of the defendants to move for summary judgment is extended until June 28,

            2024, and the motion is otherwise denied; and it is further,

                   ORDERED that the separate motion of the defendant Ralph Lauren Center for Cancer

            Care and Prevention, incorrectly denominated as a cross motion, is denied as untimely.

             800173/2011 VELEZ, JULIA vs. NEW YORK PRESBYTERIAN HOSPITAL                          Page 4 of 5
             Motion No. 006

                                                          4 of 5
[* 4]
                                                                                                      INDEX NO. 800173/2011
  NYSCEF DOC. NO. 43                                                                           RECEIVED NYSCEF: 03/28/2024

                   This constitutes the Decision and Order of the court.

                  3/28/2024                                                            $SIG$
                    DATE                                                       JOHN J. KELLEY, J.S.C.

            MOTION 1:                CASE DISPOSED                 X   NON-FINAL DISPOSITION

                                                     □                                            □
                                     GRANTED              DENIED   X   GRANTED IN PART                OTHER

            APPLICATION:             SETTLE ORDER                      SUBMIT ORDER

                                                                                                  □
                                                                                                      REFERENCE
            CHECK IF APPROPRIATE:    INCLUDES TRANSFER/REASSIGN        FIDUCIARY APPOINTMENT

            MOTION 2:                CASE DISPOSED                 X   NON-FINAL DISPOSITION

                                                     □                                            □
                                     GRANTED          X   DENIED       GRANTED IN PART                OTHER

            APPLICATION:             SETTLE ORDER                      SUBMIT ORDER

                                                                                                  □
            CHECK IF APPROPRIATE:    INCLUDES TRANSFER/REASSIGN        FIDUCIARY APPOINTMENT          REFERENCE

            800173/2011 VELEZ, JULIA vs. NEW YORK PRESBYTERIAN HOSPITAL                               Page 5 of 5
            Motion No. 006

                                                          5 of 5
[* 5]