On September 2, 2026, Justice Reed of the New York County Commercial Division issued a decision in Python Fin. Solutions, Inc. v. SDCK I LLC, 2026 NY Slip Op. 51450(U), holding that a party that fails timely to move to vacate a Note of Issue faces a high burden in vacating it, explaining:
The Uniform Rules set forth two separate and distinct methods for obtaining discovery after a note of issue is filed. If a party moves within twenty (20) days of the filing of the note of issue to vacate the note of issue, that party must demonstrate only the less stringent standard — that is, upon affidavit showing in what respects the case is not ready for trial, and the court may vacate the note of issue if it appears that a material fact in the certificate of readiness is incorrect, or that the certificate of readiness fails to comply with the requirements of this section in some material respect. However, if the party seeking discovery moves to compel such discovery after the 20-day period provided by 22 NYCRR 202.21(e) has expired, the more stringent standard under 22 NYCRR 202.21(d) — requiring good cause — must be met. Good cause is established when the party seeking post-note discovery demonstrates unusual or unanticipated circumstances and substantial prejudice.
Here, defendant is subject to the more arduous standard simply because it filed its motion to vacate the note of issue eight (8) days after the deadline for such submission. Section § 202.21(d) of the Uniform Rules of the Supreme Court specifies that the certificate of readiness indicate that all discovery proceedings have been completed. Obviously, that was not the case in this instance: the court itself was in the process of completing an in-camera review of the disputed documents; and plaintiff indeed acknowledged in a footnote, when filing its note of issue, that discovery was in fact not complete. Defendant, nevertheless, has failed to show any unusual or unanticipated circumstances that would justify vacating the note of issue after failing to file its motion to vacate in a timely manner.
That failure notwithstanding, trial courts are authorized, as a matter of discretion, to permit post-note of issue discovery without vacating the note of issue, so long as neither party will be prejudiced. Although defendant here fails to demonstrate actual unusual or unanticipated circumstances that merit vacating the note of issue, defendant has identified how it would be prejudiced if it were foreclosed from using non-privileged evidence at trial, or in connection with dispositive motion submissions or at oral argument on such motion(s). Further, though not so-ordered by the court, the docket reflects that the parties did stipulate to a request to extend the deadline to file dispositive motions in light of the court’s on-going in-camera review. Given the circumstances present here, the court grants leave for limited post-note of issue discovery related solely to inquiries involving, or arising logically from, the production of documents PYT0003056 and PYT003004, which were ordered to be produced by plaintiff to defendant following in-camera review by the court. The court perceives no prejudice that could result from such continued discovery.
(Internal quotations and citations omitted).
The post Party That Fails to Timely Move to Vacate a Note of Issue Faces a High Burden to Vacate It appeared first on Lundin PLLC.