On May 31, 2023, the Second Department issued a decision in Anuchina v. Marine Transp. Logistics, Inc., 2023 NY Slip Op. 02858, holding that a discovery motion was properly denied because of the movant’s failure adequately to meet and confer regarding the dispute, explaining:
[T]he Supreme Court properly denied the plaintiff’s motion due to her attorney’s failure to comply with the good faith requirements of 22 NYCRR 202.7. Pursuant to that rule, a motion relating to disclosure must be accompanied by an affirmation from moving counsel attesting that he or she has conferred with counsel for the opposing party in a good faith effort to resolve the issues raised by the motion. The purpose of this rule is to avoid the unnecessary expenditure of limited judicial resources in circumstances where the attorneys for the parties could resolve the issues that would be raised in a motion through constructive dialogue. The affirmation shall indicate the time, place and nature of the consultation and the issues discussed and any resolutions, or shall indicate good cause why no such conferral with counsel for opposing parties was held. Assuming such good cause does not exist, the affirmation must refer to communications between the parties evincing a diligent effort by the movant to resolve the discovery dispute. The good faith efforts may be explained in counsel’s primary affirmation submitted in support of the motion or in a separate affirmation that serves specifically to discuss such efforts, although the latter is the better practice. Failure to provide such an affirmation warrants denial of the motion.
Here, the affirmation of the plaintiff’s attorney failed to evince a sufficiently diligent effort to resolve the dispute before seeking judicial intervention.
(Internal quotations and citations omitted).