Root v. Brotmann

41 A.D.3d 247, 836 N.Y.S.2d 874
Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York·Decided June 19, 2007·Published·Cited by 5 cases

Opinion

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Richard E Braun, J.), entered October 25, 2006, which granted defendant’s cross motion to change venue from New York to Westchester County and awarded defendant costs, unanimously reversed, on the law, with costs, the motion denied and the award of costs vacated.

Defendant’s moving papers, seeking a change of venue pursuant to CPLR 510 (3), were deficient in virtually every relevant respect. Among other defects, the moving papers failed to set forth whether the named witnesses would be willing to testify, the nature and materiality of the witnesses’ anticipated testimony, and the manner in which they would be inconvenienced by a trial in New York County (see Gissen v Boy Scouts of Am., 26 AD3d 289 [2006]). Although defendant attempted to cure certain of these deficiencies in his reply papers, that attempt was improper and should have been disregarded (see Job v Subaru Leasing Corp., 30 AD3d 159 [2006]; Barbot v Nagabushana, 235 AD2d 289 [1997]), and, in any event, substantively inadequate. Concur—Marlow, J.P., Williams, Gonzalez, Catterson and McGuire, JJ.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Root v. Brotmann, 41 A.D.3d 247, 836 N.Y.S.2d 874 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2007).

41 A.D.3d 247 (Root v. Brotmann) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Atlantic Mutual Insurance v. M.H. Kane Construction Corp.
100 A.D.3d 564 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2012)
Mohsin v. Port Authority
83 A.D.3d 536 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2011)
In re the Dissolution of Supplier Distribution Concepts, Inc.
80 A.D.3d 869 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2011)
Gersten v. Lemke
68 A.D.3d 681 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2009)