Gersten v. Lemke

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Gersten v. Lemke

68 A.D.3d 681, 890 N.Y.2d 828

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York·Decided December 29, 2009·Published·Cited by 7 cases

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

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.

Gersten v. Lemke, 68 A.D.3d 681, 890 N.Y.2d 828 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2009).

Pincite

68 A.D.3d 681 (Gersten v. Lemke) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related