Adam Leitman Bailey, P.C. Defeats Motion to Compel Production of an Additional Deposition Witness in Favor of Chase Bank, N.A.
In Martinez v. JP Morgan Chase Bank, et. al., Adam Leitman Bailey, P.C. defeated the plaintiff’s motion, in favor of JP Morgan Chase Bank, in overcoming the plaintiff’s claim that the deposition witness produced by Chase was an inadequate witness due to his lack of personal knowledge of the subject mortgage transaction.
In this Queens Supreme Court action, the plaintiff seeks to void a deed and mortgage, claiming that his stepson fraudulently induced him into transferring the premises.
During the deposition of a representative from Chase, after learning that the Chase deponent did not have first-hand knowledge of the mortgage transaction, (but rather was only familiar with the loan to the extent that he reviewed Chase’s loan file), the plaintiff ended the deposition and moved to compel Chase to produce a second witness, who actually attended the closing and/or originated the loan.
Pursuant to a decision and order of Judge Janice A. Taylor dated May 10, 2012, however, Adam Leitman Bailey, P.C. prevailed, arguing that the Chase deponent had adequate and sufficient knowledge of the transaction by virtue of his review of the documents produced and maintained by Chase with respect to the transaction.
Adam Leitman Bailey, P.C. further successfully argued that the additional information sought by the plaintiff is neither material nor necessary to the prosecution of the action, and the court denied the plaintiff’s motion in its entirety in favor of Chase.
The Title Litigation Group at Adam Leitman Bailey, P.C. won this case for the insured, with Jackie Halpern Weinstein and Colin E. Kaufman representing the firm.