Amy L. M. v. Board of Education of Carmel Central School District

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Amy L. M. v. Board of Education of Carmel Central School District

199 A.D.2d 477, 608 N.Y.S.2d 5

CourtAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York

DecidedDecember 27, 1993

StatusPublished

This text of 199 A.D.2d 477 (Amy L. M. v. Board of Education of Carmel Central School District) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Amy L. M. v. Board of Education of Carmel Central School District, 199 A.D.2d 477, 608 N.Y.S.2d 5 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1993).

Pincite

Opinion

In an action to recover damages, inter alia, for loss of services and companionship, the defendants other than Jeffrey Miller appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Putnam County (Hickman, J.), dated March 26, 1992, which purportedly granted the plaintiffs’ request for a change of venue.

Ordered that the appeal is dismissed, without costs or disbursements.

By order dated March 26, 1992, the Justice presiding over this case sua sponte recused himself and noted that the plaintiffs had requested a change of venue. However, the order did not change venue. Thus, the appellants are not aggrieved by the order. In any event, in this case, the court could only change venue upon a formal motion by the plaintiffs (see, Agway, Inc. v Kervin, 188 AD2d 1076; Kelson v Nedicks Stores, 104 AD2d 315; Korman v City of New York, 89 AD2d 888). Thompson, J. P., Sullivan, Miller, Ritter and Santucci, JJ., concur.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

In an action to recover damages, inter alia, for loss of services and companionship, the defendants other than Jeffrey Miller appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Putnam County (Hickman, J.), dated March 26, 1992, which purportedly granted the plaintiffs’ request for a change of venue.

Ordered that the appeal is dismissed, without costs or disbursements.

By order dated March 26, 1992, the Justice presiding over this case sua sponte recused himself and noted that the plaintiffs had requested a change of venue. However, the order did not change venue. Thus, the appellants are not aggrieved by the order. In any event, in this case, the court could only change venue upon a formal motion by the plaintiffs (see, Agway, Inc. v Kervin, 188 AD2d 1076; Kelson v Nedicks Stores, 104 AD2d 315; Korman v City of New York, 89 AD2d 888). Thompson, J. P., Sullivan, Miller, Ritter and Santucci, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

199 A.D.2d 477, 608 N.Y.S.2d 5, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/amy-l-m-v-board-of-education-of-carmel-central-school-district-nyappdiv-1993.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack