On March 26, 2026, Justice Patel of the New York County Commercial Division issued a decision in Irizarry v. Zelaya, 2026 NY Slip Op. 31254(U), holding that a Notice to Admit cannot be used as a means to discover facts, explaining:
A notice to admit may be served on a party to confirm the genuineness of any papers or documents, or the correctness or fairness of representation of any photographs, described in and served with the request, or the truth of any matters of fact set forth in the request, as to which the party requesting the admission reasonably believes there can be no substantial dispute at the trial and which are within the knowledge of such other party or can be ascertained by him upon reasonable inquiry. The First Department has consistently held that the purpose of a notice to admit is to eliminate from the litigation factual matters which will not be in dispute at trial, not to obtain information in lieu of other disclosure devices.
Here, the Strahle MTD filed on February 1, 2022, stayed discovery in this action pursuant to CPLR § 3214(b). The remaining Defendants subsequently filed Motions to Dismiss between February 25, 2022, and August 9, 2023. Defendants identify nothing in the record indicating that the Court lifted the discovery stay during the pendency of the motions. Nor do Defendants make any argument to address Plaintiff’s claim that the March 15, 2022 Notice to Admit is a legal nullity. Accordingly, the Court grants Plaintiff’s Motion to Strike the Notice to Admit because it was improperly served in violation of the automatic discovery stay under CPLR § 3214(b). Notwithstanding the procedural defects, the Court observes that the requests contained in the Notice to Admit also suffer from substantive defects including, for example, confirming public records that Defendants can access (e.g., Requests 1–5), seeking admissions on ultimate disputed facts (e.g., Requests 17–26), or comparing documents to draw legal conclusions that the First Department determined are irrelevant (e.g., Request 14–16). The purpose of a notice to admit is to narrow and exclude factual issues from trial, and not to seek information in lieu of a deposition. In the Sanquintin case, the First Department held that a notice to admit seeking validation and authentication of photographs was improperly being used as a disclosure device, thereby entitling plaintiff to a protective order. The First Department has also held that a notice to admit seeking acknowledgement of public records where a plaintiff would have as much access to such information as defendant does are improper inquiries. The Lugo Defendants’ Opposition focuses primarily on the subject matter and relevancy of the requests yet ignores arguments that Plaintiff advances concerning the use of a notice to admit as a substitute for appropriate disclosure devices, such as depositions or interrogatories, based upon the information sought.
(Internal quotations and citations omitted).