Gersten v. Lemke
This text of 68 A.D.3d 681 (Gersten v. Lemke) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.
Opinion
Defendant’s bare assertions of inconvenience fail to show the manner in which his proposed witnesses would be inconvenienced by having to travel between Nassau and New York Counties (see Schoen v Chase Manhattan Automotive Fin. Corp., 274 AD2d 345 [2000]; cf. Cardona v Aggressive Heating, 180 AD2d 572, 573 [1992]; Heinemann v Grunfeld, 224 AD2d 204 [1996]). In addition, the home or work addresses of allegedly inconvenienced witnesses were improperly first provided in defendant’s reply papers (see Schoen, supra; Root v Brotmann, 41 AD3d 247 [2007]). Concur — Andrias. J.P., Friedman, Acosta, DeGrasse and Román, JJ.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Related
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
68 A.D.3d 681, 890 N.Y.2d 828, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/gersten-v-lemke-nyappdiv-2009.