Legal Opinion
Gersten v. Lemke
Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York
Decided December 29, 2009PublishedCited by 7 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
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,…
2Cases cited4 opinions
- Cardon v. Aggressive Heating Inc.Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1992
- Heinemann v. GrunfeldAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1996
- Root v. BrotmannAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 2007
- Schoen v. Chase Manhattan Automotive Finance Corp.Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 2000
3Cited by7 opinions
- 10 Two Trees Lane LLC v. MahoneyAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 2021
- New York Mar. & Gen. Ins. Co. v. Wesco Ins. Co.Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 2023
- New York Mar. & Gen. Ins. Co. v. Wesco Ins. Co.Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 2023
- Pollack v. St. Francis Hosp.Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 2022
- Pollack v. St. Francis Hosp.Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 2022
2 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.