RYE, NY (October 3, 2026) — A Westchester County Supreme Court judge has denied Consolidated Edison’s bid to strike Jeanine Pirro’s remaining lawsuit over her 2025 fall in Rye, ruling the discovery motion was premature, while the utility has separately moved for a default judgment against Elecnor Hawkeye LLC, the contractor it says performed work at the accident location.
Justice David J. Squirrell issued the ruling Oct. 2, two days after Con Edison moved to strike Pirro’s complaint under CPLR 3126 for what the utility characterized as a willful failure to comply with outstanding discovery demands. Squirrell did not decide whether Pirro had failed to comply with discovery. Instead, he ruled that Con Edison had filed its motion before completing procedures required under Westchester Supreme Court Civil Case Management Rules.
The rules state that no discovery-related motion may be filed until a pre-motion conference has been requested and held and that motion papers may not be filed until after a preliminary conference order has been issued.
“To date, there has been no Preliminary Conference in this matter,” Squirrell wrote. “In fact, no Party has requested a Preliminary Conference.”
Squirrell noted that in his earlier decision dismissing the City of Rye from the case, he had already scheduled a preliminary conference for Monday, Oct. 5.
“As such this motion must be denied as premature,” Squirrell wrote.
The judge denied Con Edison’s motion and directed the parties to appear Oct. 5 at 9:30 a.m. for the preliminary conference, where they must be prepared to discuss any outstanding discovery.
Con Edison had filed its motion Sept. 30, alleging Pirro failed to provide outstanding discovery, failed to offer a reasonable excuse for the noncompliance and failed to meaningfully respond to its requests. The utility argued that the missing information prevented it from fully investigating Pirro’s claims, evaluating liability and damages, conducting depositions, retaining experts and preparing dispositive motions.
Con Edison had asked Squirrell to strike Pirro’s complaint or, alternatively, order her to provide complete discovery responses within 30 days, with additional sanctions possible if she continued to fail to comply. The judge’s Oct. 2 ruling did not resolve those allegations, instead sending the discovery issues to the preliminary conference.
At the same time, Con Edison has moved for a default judgment against Elecnor Hawkeye, the third-party defendant in the case. Con Edison filed a third-party complaint against Elecnor on March 26 and says the company was served April 21 but has never answered or otherwise appeared in the action.
According to Con Edison, Elecnor has not requested an extension of time to answer or obtained a court order extending its time to appear or respond. The utility says records show Elecnor performed work at the location of Pirro’s fall under Contract/Purchase Order No. 5965715 between Elecnor and Con Edison.
Con Edison is asking Squirrell to enter a default judgment against Elecnor and set the matter down for an assessment of damages at the time of trial. If Pirro’s lawsuit is settled, Con Edison is asking the court to grant judgment against Elecnor for the full amount of any settlement Con Edison pays Pirro, provided the settlement receives prior court approval.
That motion is returnable Oct. 30 at 9:30 a.m. in Westchester County Supreme Court in White Plains.
Before seeking the default judgment, Con Edison contacted Elecnor about its failure to appear. In a Sept. 23 email, Con Edison Assistant General Counsel Carolyn Comparato wrote that the utility had forwarded its tender to Elecnor’s carrier in February but had not received a response.
“In addition, we filed an impleader, but Hawkeye has not appeared in the action,” Comparato wrote. “As the deadline to seek a default is approaching, we would appreciate your prompt attention to this matter. Please have your carrier respond to our tender and/or file a response to the impleader as soon as possible.”
The latest developments follow Squirrell’s Sept. 11 decision dismissing the City of Rye from Pirro’s lawsuit. The case stems from Pirro’s Aug. 28, 2025, fall near the intersection of Purchase Street and Library Place in Rye.
Pirro commenced the action against Con Edison on Jan. 8. Con Edison served its answer and cross-complaint Jan. 22 and later brought Elecnor into the case as a third-party defendant.
Rye had argued that it could not be held liable because it had not received the prior written notice required under the Rye City Charter for the allegedly dangerous condition. Squirrell granted Rye’s motion to dismiss Pirro’s complaint against the city as well as Con Edison’s cross-claim against Rye.
Pirro filed a notice of appeal Sept. 23 seeking review by the Appellate Division, Second Judicial Department. That left Con Edison as the defendant in Pirro’s personal injury action and Elecnor Hawkeye as the third-party defendant.
The case now moves forward on multiple fronts. Pirro’s appeal of Rye’s dismissal remains pending, the discovery dispute between Pirro and Con Edison is set to be addressed at Monday’s preliminary conference, and Con Edison’s motion for a default judgment against Elecnor is scheduled to be heard later this month.
RELATED
Rye Wins Dismissal From Jeanine Pirro Fall Lawsuit as Con Edison Moves to Toss Her Remaining Case (10/01/2026)
Rye Won’t Take the Fall for Jeanine Pirro’s Tumble Outside City Hall (04/21/2026)
What Did Jeanine Pirro Actually Allege — And Is the City of Rye Likely to Prevail? (02/17/2026)
This article was prepared with the assistance of AI tools under the direction and editing of Robert Cox.
Have information about this story? Email robertcox@talkofthesound (preferred) or contact via WhatsApp: +353 089 972 0669.