From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Root v. Brotmann

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, First Department
Jun 19, 2007
41 A.D.3d 247 (N.Y. App. Div. 2007)

Opinion

No. 1371.

June 19, 2007.

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Richard F. 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.

Geoffrey P. Berman, New York, for appellant.

Law Offices of James M. Abramson, PLLC, New York (Lisa Gitelson of counsel), for respondent.

Before: Marlow, J.P., Williams, Gonzalez, Catterson and McGuire, JJ.


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). 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; Barbot v Nagabushana, 235 AD2d 289), and, in any event, substantively inadequate.


Summaries of

Root v. Brotmann

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, First Department
Jun 19, 2007
41 A.D.3d 247 (N.Y. App. Div. 2007)
Case details for

Root v. Brotmann

Case Details

Full title:MYRNA ROOT et al., Appellants, v. ANDREW K. BROTMANN, ESQ., Respondent

Court:Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, First Department

Date published: Jun 19, 2007

Citations

41 A.D.3d 247 (N.Y. App. Div. 2007)
2007 N.Y. Slip Op. 5356
836 N.Y.S.2d 874

Citing Cases

Talal Bin Sultan Bin Abdul-Aziz Al Saud v. N.Y. & Presbyterian Hosp.

The petitioner's submission of new evidence in his reply was improper, and the court does not consider this…

Mohsin v. Port Authority

Defendants' moving papers were deficient inasmuch as they failed to provide the names, addresses and…