- Court
- New York Supreme Court, Appellate Division, First Department
- Case
- Schnur v. Balestriere
- Date
- June 2, 2026
- Slip Op. No.
- 2026 NY Slip Op 03410
Background
Plaintiffs Yifat V. Schnur and others brought this action against defendants Jeremy Saland, Crotty Saland P.C., and others. After a note of issue was filed, the Saland defendants moved to vacate the note of issue and for additional discovery, seeking production of plaintiffs’ tax returns from 2011 to the present. The Saland defendants also argued that a continued deposition of plaintiff was necessary because post-note of issue document production demonstrated that the attorney-client privilege she had asserted during her deposition was not warranted. Plaintiffs cross-moved to renew their prior motion for sanctions against the Saland defendants. The Supreme Court, New York County, denied both motions, and both sides appealed.
Holding
The Appellate Division unanimously affirmed the denial of both motions. On the motion to vacate the note of issue, the Court held that the Saland defendants did not make the necessary showing for production of plaintiffs’ tax returns, applying the standard from Lee v. Chun Ka Luk, 132 AD3d 515 (1st Dept 2015). The Court further noted that the plaintiff had already been deposed, during which the Saland defendants could have questioned her about her damages claim and income. The argument that a continued deposition was necessary based on post-note of issue document production was raised for the first time on appeal and therefore not properly before the Court. On the cross-motion for sanctions, the Court found the trial court providently exercised its discretion in declining to grant renewal.
Takeaways
A party seeking to vacate a note of issue to obtain additional discovery must make a specific showing of necessity. Tax returns are not automatically discoverable; the party seeking them must demonstrate that the information is indispensable and cannot be obtained from other sources. Arguments not raised before the motion court cannot be raised for the first time on appeal. Practitioners should be diligent about raising all arguments in support of or in opposition to discovery motions at the trial court level, as the appellate court will not consider issues presented for the first time on appeal.
Why It Matters
This decision reinforces the stringent standard for vacating a note of issue to conduct additional discovery. Once a note of issue has been filed, the case is presumed ready for trial, and a party seeking further discovery faces a heavy burden. The requirement of demonstrating that tax returns are specifically relevant and cannot be obtained through other means creates a meaningful barrier to post-note discovery fishing expeditions. Practitioners should ensure that all necessary discovery, including requests for financial documents, is pursued before the note of issue is filed, as post-note requests will be closely scrutinized.