Barney v. Rochester Institute of Technology

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Barney v. Rochester Institute of Technology

105 A.D.2d 516, 481 N.Y.S.2d 465, 1984 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 20549

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

DecidedOctober 18, 1984

StatusPublished

Cited by4 cases

This text of 105 A.D.2d 516 (Barney v. Rochester Institute of Technology) 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

Barney v. Rochester Institute of Technology, 105 A.D.2d 516, 481 N.Y.S.2d 465, 1984 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 20549 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1984).

Pincite

Opinion

Appeal from an order of the Supreme Court at Special Term (Kahn, J.), entered December 16,1983 in Albany County, which denied defendant’s motion to change venue from Albany County to Monroe County.

Plaintiff commenced this action in Albany County, her place of residence, seeking to recover for personal injuries she received when struck by an automobile as she was walking along Wiltsie Drive on defendant’s campus. Defendant answered and thereafter moved pursuant to CPLR 510 (subd 3) to change the place of trial to Monroe County, where defendant’s campus is located and where several of the intended witnesses reside. Special Term denied the motion and this appeal followed.

To prevail on its motion to change the place of trial pursuant to CPLR 510 (subd 3), defendant was required, among other factors, to set forth the testimony each witness was expected to give in sufficient detail to enable the court to assess its materiality (see, e.g., McLaughlin, Practice Commentaries, McKinney’s Cons Laws of NY, Book 7B, CPLR C510:3, p 74). Our review of the record reveals that the brief statement of the witnesses’ expected testimony fails to set forth any evidentiary facts about the incident and is, thus, insufficient in this regard. Accordingly, the motion to change the place of trial was properly denied.

Order affirmed, with costs. Main, J. P., Casey, Mikoll, Yesawich, Jr., and Harvey, JJ., concur.

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

Appeal from an order of the Supreme Court at Special Term (Kahn, J.), entered December 16,1983 in Albany County, which denied defendant’s motion to change venue from Albany County to Monroe County.

Plaintiff commenced this action in Albany County, her place of residence, seeking to recover for personal injuries she received when struck by an automobile as she was walking along Wiltsie Drive on defendant’s campus. Defendant answered and thereafter moved pursuant to CPLR 510 (subd 3) to change the place of trial to Monroe County, where defendant’s campus is located and where several of the intended witnesses reside. Special Term denied the motion and this appeal followed.

To prevail on its motion to change the place of trial pursuant to CPLR 510 (subd 3), defendant was required, among other factors, to set forth the testimony each witness was expected to give in sufficient detail to enable the court to assess its materiality (see, e.g., McLaughlin, Practice Commentaries, McKinney’s Cons Laws of NY, Book 7B, CPLR C510:3, p 74). Our review of the record reveals that the brief statement of the witnesses’ expected testimony fails to set forth any evidentiary facts about the incident and is, thus, insufficient in this regard. Accordingly, the motion to change the place of trial was properly denied.

Order affirmed, with costs. Main, J. P., Casey, Mikoll, Yesawich, Jr., and Harvey, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

105 A.D.2d 516, 481 N.Y.S.2d 465, 1984 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 20549, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/barney-v-rochester-institute-of-technology-nyappdiv-1984.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack