Aviles v. CYO Whitestone Swimming Pool

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Aviles v. CYO Whitestone Swimming Pool

168 A.D.2d 405

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

DecidedDecember 3, 1990

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 168 A.D.2d 405 (Aviles v. CYO Whitestone Swimming Pool) 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

Aviles v. CYO Whitestone Swimming Pool, 168 A.D.2d 405 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1990).

Pincite

Opinion

In a negligence action to recover damages for personal injuries, etc., the plaintiffs appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Hurowitz, J.), entered May 19, 1989, which granted the defendants’ motion for a change of venue.

Ordered that the order is reversed, on the law, with costs, and the motion is denied.

Upon a motion for a change of venue pursuant to CPLR 510 (3) based upon convenience of the witnesses, the movant must establish the identity of the witnesses who allegedly will be inconvenienced, their willingness to testify, and the nature of their anticipated testimony. Absent such a showing, such a motion should be denied (see, Alexandre v Pepsi-Cola Bottling Co., 150 AD2d 742; Ferrigno v General Motors Corp., 134 AD2d 479; Greene v Hillcrest Gen. Hosp., 130 AD2d 621; Brevetti v Roth, 114 AD2d 877; Williamsburg Steel Prods. Co. v Shelving-Manning, Inc., 90 AD2d 550). The defendants failed to satisfy this burden and, accordingly, the granting of the motion was improper. Mangano, P. J., Kunzeman, Kooper, Sullivan and Ritter, JJ., concur.

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

In a negligence action to recover damages for personal injuries, etc., the plaintiffs appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Hurowitz, J.), entered May 19, 1989, which granted the defendants’ motion for a change of venue.

Ordered that the order is reversed, on the law, with costs, and the motion is denied.

Upon a motion for a change of venue pursuant to CPLR 510 (3) based upon convenience of the witnesses, the movant must establish the identity of the witnesses who allegedly will be inconvenienced, their willingness to testify, and the nature of their anticipated testimony. Absent such a showing, such a motion should be denied (see, Alexandre v Pepsi-Cola Bottling Co., 150 AD2d 742; Ferrigno v General Motors Corp., 134 AD2d 479; Greene v Hillcrest Gen. Hosp., 130 AD2d 621; Brevetti v Roth, 114 AD2d 877; Williamsburg Steel Prods. Co. v Shelving-Manning, Inc., 90 AD2d 550). The defendants failed to satisfy this burden and, accordingly, the granting of the motion was improper. Mangano, P. J., Kunzeman, Kooper, Sullivan and Ritter, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

168 A.D.2d 405, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/aviles-v-cyo-whitestone-swimming-pool-nyappdiv-1990.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack