Appeal from an order of the District Court of Nassau County, First District (Fred J. Hirsh, J.), dated December 2, 2013. The order denied defendant's motion to vacate plaintiffs' notice of trial and to compel plaintiffs to comply with discovery demands.

ORDERED that the order is modified by providing that the branch of defendant's motion seeking to vacate plaintiffs' notice of trial is granted; as so modified, the order is affirmed, without costs.

The three plaintiffs commenced this action on April 26, 2012 to recover the sum of $7,044.89 in assigned first-party no-fault benefits, stating that three claims, that is, one claim for each of the providers, were unpaid and overdue. Defendant's answer was accompanied by various discovery demands. Defendant moved for summary judgment dismissing the complaint, and plaintiffs opposed the motion. By order dated April 22, 2013, the District Court denied defendant's motion, without prejudice, finding that the complaint had improperly pleaded the causes of action and that, consequently, the court was prevented from determining whether defendant's claim denials were timely. The District Court granted plaintiffs leave to serve an amended complaint. In accordance with the order, plaintiffs served an amended complaint on May 17, 2013, stating that 25 claims that the providers had submitted altogether were unpaid in the total sum of $5,165.79. On May 24, 2013, defendant served an amended answer and, on July 16, 2013, served interrogatories and combined demands for discovery, which were identical to the ones served in 2012. Plaintiffs did not serve responses to the July 16, 2013 discovery demands but, instead, served a notice of trial and certificate of readiness on July 30, 2013.

On August 16, 2013, defendant moved to vacate the notice of trial and to compel plaintiffs to comply with discovery. Defense counsel also argued in an affirmation that defendant should be awarded costs pursuant to Rules of the Chief Administrator of the Courts (22 NYCRR) § 130-1.1. In opposition to defendant's motion, plaintiffs submitted an affidavit of service which stated that they had served responses to defendant's demands on August 13, 2012. The exhibits [*2]annexed to plaintiffs' opposition papers included 27 NF-3 claim forms from the three providers in the total sum of $6,766.99, as well as responses to defendant's demand for interrogatories, demonstrating that plaintiffs had complied with defendant's 2012 discovery requests. In a reply affirmation, defendant's attorney stated, in a conclusory manner, that defendant did not receive plaintiffs' discovery responses until after defendant had served the motion at issue, and that the responses are "vague and conclusory as they do not provide with specificity the bills and amounts alleged in dispute." By order dated December 2, 2013, the District Court denied defendant's motion, stating that defendant "should have moved to compel a more adequate or proper demand within a reasonable time after service of the responses." The court did not expressly address defendant's request for Part 130 costs.

Although plaintiffs' affidavit of service annexed to their opposition papers created a presumption that they had served responses to disclosure demands in 2012, plaintiffs subsequently served an amended complaint in 2013 containing new causes of action, and plaintiffs had failed to respond to defendant's July 16, 2013 demands as of the time that plaintiffs filed their notice of trial and certificate of readiness. The fact that plaintiffs may have responded to the 2012 discovery demands in 2012 (a claim that defendant denies) did not entitle plaintiffs to ignore defendant's July 16, 2013 demands, even if they were identical to the 2012 version, since they were now addressed to an amended complaint which contained new facts. Thus, the branch of defendant's motion seeking to vacate the notice of trial should have been granted as it was timely (see Uniform Rules for the Dist Cts [22 NYCRR] § 212.17 [c]) and was based upon a certificate of readiness which contained the erroneous statement that discovery had been completed (see Savino v Lewittes, 160 AD2d 176 [1990]; Great Wall Acupuncture, P.C. v General Assur. Co., 21 Misc 3d 45, 47 [App Term, 2d & 11th Jud Dists 2008]; see also Queens Chiropractic Management, P.C. v Country Wide Ins. Co., 23 Misc 3d 142[A], 2009 NY Slip Op 51073[U] [App Term, 2d, 11th & 13th Jud Dists 2009]).

The record further shows that, in reply, defendant raised no issue with plaintiffs' implicit position that they had responded to the discovery demands. Indeed, defendant claimed merely that plaintiffs' responses annexed to their opposition papers were vague and conclusory, and not that they should not be deemed a response to the July 16, 2013 demands. As plaintiffs have now complied with defendant's discovery demands, the branch of defendant's motion seeking to compel discovery should be denied, as it has been rendered moot. Furthermore, any issue raised by defendant with respect to the adequacy of plaintiffs' responses is not before us, inasmuch as defendant's motion failed to object to specific items in plaintiffs' responses (cf. New Era Acupuncture, P.C. v State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., 24 Misc 3d 134[A], 2009 NY Slip Op 51396[U] [App Term, 9th & 10th Jud Dists 2009]). In the circumstances presented, we decline to award defendant the relief requested pursuant to Rules of the Chief Administrator of the Courts (22 NYCRR) § 130-1.1.

Accordingly, the order is modified by providing that the branch of defendant's motion seeking to vacate plaintiffs' notice of trial is granted.

Tolbert, J.P., Marano and Connolly, JJ., concur.