Opinion
160694/2019
01-06-2020
E. Jean CARROLL, Plaintiff, v. Donald TRUMP, Defendant.
Attorneys for Plaintiff: Roberta A. Kaplan, Esq., Kaplan Hecker & Fink LLP, 350 Fifth Avenue, Suite 7110, New York, NY 10118 Attorney for Defendant: Lawrence S. Rosen, Esq., Larocca Hornik Rosen @ Greenberg LLP, 40 Wall Street, 32nd Floor, New York, NY 10005
Attorneys for Plaintiff: Roberta A. Kaplan, Esq., Kaplan Hecker & Fink LLP, 350 Fifth Avenue, Suite 7110, New York, NY 10118
Attorney for Defendant: Lawrence S. Rosen, Esq., Larocca Hornik Rosen @ Greenberg LLP, 40 Wall Street, 32nd Floor, New York, NY 10005
Doris Ling-Cohan, J.
The following e-filed documents, listed by NYSCEF document number (Motion 001) 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34 were considered on this motion to/for DISMISS
Defendant Donald Trump ("Trump") seeks that this Court sign his Order to Show Cause to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction and for an interim stay of discovery.
Upon the foregoing documents, it is
ORDERED that the Court declines to sign the within Order to Show Cause submitted by defendant Trump, as the moving papers fail to contain an affidavit by him, to support his argument that this Court lacks personal jurisdiction over him. Although defendant Trump, through his counsel, claims lack of personal jurisdiction, notably, there is not even a tweet, much less an affidavit by defendant Trump in support of his motion. Instead, as to his claim of lack of personal jurisdiction, defendant asserts, through his attorney in a mere Memorandum of Law in Support, that this Court should "take judicial notice that the President of the United States has resided in the White House for the past three years." (Memorandum of Law in Support, at 2, ¶1). However, judicial notice is not appropriate here, as "[a] court may only apply judicial notice to matters ‘of common and general knowledge, well established, and authoritatively settled, not doubtful or uncertain [;] the test is whether sufficient notoriety attaches to the fact to make it proper to assume its existence without proof.’ " ( Dollas v. W.R. Grace and Co. , 225 AD2d 319, 320 [1st Dept 1996], quoting Ecco High Frequency Corp. v. Amtorg Trading Corp. , 81 NYS 2d 610 [Sup Ct, NY County 1948], affd 274 AD 982 [1st Dept 1948] ).
The Court notes that, not only was no affidavit from defendant Trump supplied in support of this application, but even the defendant's attorney's affirmation does not assert a basis (evidentiary or otherwise) for dismissal; rather, the affirmation acts as a mere conduit to provide documents relating to the procedural posture of the case. (Lawrence Rosen Affirmation).
Moreover, there is no basis for a stay of discovery deadlines in this case.
In the future, all Orders to Show Cause shall be presented in the following manner:
1. Notice to the other side as per 22 NYCRR § 202.7(f) and the Court shall also be provided with courtesy hard copies in hand, of all papers; and
2. Movant shall seek an appropriate "time, date and place" as per 22 NYCRR § 202.7(f), for presentation of any application, from the Part's court attorney by telephone, prior to filing.