Court Opinion

ID: 5787675
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2022-01-12 18:03:35.272873+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T08:42:09.395905
License: Public Domain

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.