Berk v. Linnehan

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Berk v. Linnehan

85 A.D.3d 475, 924 N.Y.S.2d 785

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

DecidedJune 9, 2011

StatusPublished

This text of 85 A.D.3d 475 (Berk v. Linnehan) 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

Berk v. Linnehan, 85 A.D.3d 475, 924 N.Y.S.2d 785 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2011).

Pincite

Opinion

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Richard F. Braun, J), entered December 29, 2010, which, inter alia, in this action for personal injuries, denied defendants’ motion to change venue from New York County to Suffolk County, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

The court properly denied defendants’ motion for a change of venue to Suffolk County. Defendants failed to make the requisite showing that their allegedly inconvenienced nonparty witnesses were actually contacted and were willing to testify (see Gissen v Boy Scouts of Am., 26 AD3d 289 [2006]; Gluck v Pond House Farm, 271 AD2d 334 [2000]; CPLR 510 [3]). Defendants also failed to set forth the substance and materiality of the testimony of at least two of the three witnesses. Concur — Gonzalez, P.J., Tom, Friedman, Catterson and Richter, JJ.

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

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Richard F. Braun, J), entered December 29, 2010, which, inter alia, in this action for personal injuries, denied defendants’ motion to change venue from New York County to Suffolk County, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

The court properly denied defendants’ motion for a change of venue to Suffolk County. Defendants failed to make the requisite showing that their allegedly inconvenienced nonparty witnesses were actually contacted and were willing to testify (see Gissen v Boy Scouts of Am., 26 AD3d 289 [2006]; Gluck v Pond House Farm, 271 AD2d 334 [2000]; CPLR 510 [3]). Defendants also failed to set forth the substance and materiality of the testimony of at least two of the three witnesses. Concur — Gonzalez, P.J., Tom, Friedman, Catterson and Richter, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

85 A.D.3d 475, 924 N.Y.S.2d 785, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/berk-v-linnehan-nyappdiv-2011.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack