In a recent ruling, the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York granted a motion for an extension of the note of issue deadline in the case of Mandart v. Small Bone Innovations, Inc. This decision, made on October 8, 2026, affects the plaintiff, Keith Mandart, who is pursuing a personal injury claim against Small Bone Innovations and Stryker Corporation. The court's ruling is significant as it allows the plaintiff additional time to complete necessary legal procedures in his case.
The dispute centers around the timeline for filing a note of issue, which is a document that indicates a case is ready for trial. The lower court had previously denied Mandart's request for an extension, which led to his appeal. The Appellate Division's decision to reverse this denial means that Mandart can continue his pursuit of justice without being hindered by strict deadlines.
Keith Mandart is the plaintiff in this case, seeking compensation for injuries he claims to have suffered due to the actions of Small Bone Innovations, Inc. and Stryker Corporation. The case reached the Appellate Division after the Supreme Court in New York County denied Mandart's motion to extend the note of issue deadline. The ruling was made by a panel of judges, including Justice Manzanet-Daniels, Justice Kennedy, Justice Friedman, Justice Kapnick, and Justice Higgitt.
The court ruled that the Supreme Court had “improvidently exercised its discretion” by denying Mandart's motion for an extension. The judges noted that Mandart filed his motion before the deadline set by the court and that there was no evidence to suggest that the defendants would suffer prejudice from granting the extension. In fact, the defendants did not oppose the motion, which indicated a lack of concern regarding the extension.
Furthermore, the court highlighted that Mandart had established good cause for the extension. He provided “plausible reasons” for the delay in completing discovery, which is the process of gathering evidence before a trial. The plaintiff's deposition was initially scheduled but faced delays due to the defendants' actions and Mandart's own medical issues, including multiple surgeries. The court emphasized that the delays were not due to willfulness but rather legitimate difficulties faced by both parties.
The ruling allows the trial court to set a new deadline for the note of issue. The judges noted that Mandart indicated he only required a “short” extension, suggesting that the case could progress relatively quickly once the new deadline is established.
This ruling is important for Mandart as it provides him with the opportunity to properly prepare his case without the pressure of an impending deadline. It also underscores the court's recognition of the complexities involved in personal injury cases, where delays can often occur due to various factors, including medical issues and scheduling conflicts.
The impact of this ruling extends beyond just Mandart's case. It reinforces the principle that courts should consider the circumstances surrounding delays in legal proceedings. This decision may set a precedent for future cases where parties face legitimate difficulties in meeting deadlines. It emphasizes the importance of fairness and the need for courts to exercise discretion in a way that allows for a just resolution of disputes.
Looking ahead, the case will return to the trial court, where a new deadline for the note of issue will be established. This means that Mandart can continue to gather evidence and prepare for trial. The defendants, Small Bone Innovations and Stryker Corporation, will also have the opportunity to respond as the case progresses.
As of now, there is no indication that this ruling will be appealed. The defendants did not oppose the motion for an extension, which suggests they may be willing to cooperate as the case moves forward. However, if any disputes arise regarding the new deadline or other procedural issues, further legal action could be taken.
In summary, the Appellate Division's decision in Mandart v. Small Bone Innovations, Inc. allows the plaintiff to extend the note of issue deadline, providing him with necessary time to prepare his case. The ruling highlights the importance of considering the complexities of personal injury cases and sets a precedent for how courts may handle similar situations in the future.