Ballard-Brown v. Yo Yo Cab Corp.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Ballard-Brown v. Yo Yo Cab Corp.

144 A.D.2d 318, 534 N.Y.S.2d 873, 1988 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 11194

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

DecidedNovember 7, 1988

StatusPublished

This text of 144 A.D.2d 318 (Ballard-Brown v. Yo Yo Cab Corp.) 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

Ballard-Brown v. Yo Yo Cab Corp., 144 A.D.2d 318, 534 N.Y.S.2d 873, 1988 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 11194 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1988).

Pincite

Opinion

In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, etc., the defendant appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Dutchess County (Benson, J.), entered March 3, 1988, which denied its motion for a change of venue from Dutchess County to New York County.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.

Venue motions are directed to the discretion of the trial court. The court’s discretion will generally be upheld unless an improvident exercise of discretion is demonstrated to have occurred. Under the circumstances presented here, we find no improvident exercise of discretion in the denial of the motion to change venue from Dutchess County to New York County. Mangano, J. P., Bracken, Eiber, Spatt and Sullivan, JJ., concur.

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

In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, etc., the defendant appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Dutchess County (Benson, J.), entered March 3, 1988, which denied its motion for a change of venue from Dutchess County to New York County.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.

Venue motions are directed to the discretion of the trial court. The court’s discretion will generally be upheld unless an improvident exercise of discretion is demonstrated to have occurred. Under the circumstances presented here, we find no improvident exercise of discretion in the denial of the motion to change venue from Dutchess County to New York County. Mangano, J. P., Bracken, Eiber, Spatt and Sullivan, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

144 A.D.2d 318, 534 N.Y.S.2d 873, 1988 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 11194, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/ballard-brown-v-yo-yo-cab-corp-nyappdiv-1988.