Order, Supreme Court, Bronx County (Laura G. Douglas, J.), entered December 22, 2016, which, to the extent appealed from as limited by the briefs, granted defendants’ motion to compel post-note of issue discovery, unanimously affirmed, without costs.
The motion court providently exercised its discretion in granting defendants’ motion. Contrary to plaintiff’s argument, defendants did not seek, and the motion court did not order, vacatur of the note of issue. Trial courts are authorized, as a matter of discretion, to permit post-note of issue discovery without vacating the note of issue, so long as neither party will be prejudiced (see Pickering v Union 15 Rest. Corp., 107 AD3d 450 [1st Dept 2013]), and we perceive no prejudice here (see e.g. Dominguez v Manhattan & Bronx Surface Tr. Operating Auth., 168 AD2d 376, 376-377 [1st Dept 1990]).
Counsel’s affirmations submitted with the initial motion and on reply, when viewed together, provided sufficient detail to comply with 22 NYCRR 202.7 (c) (Loeb v Assara N.Y. I L.P., 118 AD3d 457, 457-458 [1st Dept 2014]).
We have considered plaintiff’s remaining arguments and find them unavailing.
Concur — Renwick, J.R, Mazzarelli, Manzanet-Daniels, Feinman and Webber, JJ.