Binghamton Savings Bank v. Pacific Employers Insurance

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Binghamton Savings Bank v. Pacific Employers Insurance

176 A.D.2d 419, 574 N.Y.S.2d 303, 1991 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 12409

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

DecidedSeptember 26, 1991

StatusPublished

This text of 176 A.D.2d 419 (Binghamton Savings Bank v. Pacific Employers Insurance) 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

Binghamton Savings Bank v. Pacific Employers Insurance, 176 A.D.2d 419, 574 N.Y.S.2d 303, 1991 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 12409 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1991).

Pincite

Opinion

— Appeal from an order of the Supreme Court (Fischer, J.), entered June 15, 1990 in Broome County, which denied defendants’ motion for a change of venue.

We agree with Supreme Court’s conclusion that there has been a lack of discovery sufficient to warrant granting defendants’ motion for a change of venue at this stage of the proceedings. Accordingly, inasmuch as the court’s denial was without prejudice and the issues involve questions requiring further disclosure, there should be an affirmance (see, Brevetti v Roth, 114 AD2d 877; Stavredes v United States, 87 AD2d 502).

Mahoney, P. J., Mikoll, Yesawich Jr. and Mercure, JJ., concur. Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.

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

— Appeal from an order of the Supreme Court (Fischer, J.), entered June 15, 1990 in Broome County, which denied defendants’ motion for a change of venue.

We agree with Supreme Court’s conclusion that there has been a lack of discovery sufficient to warrant granting defendants’ motion for a change of venue at this stage of the proceedings. Accordingly, inasmuch as the court’s denial was without prejudice and the issues involve questions requiring further disclosure, there should be an affirmance (see, Brevetti v Roth, 114 AD2d 877; Stavredes v United States, 87 AD2d 502).

Mahoney, P. J., Mikoll, Yesawich Jr. and Mercure, JJ., concur. Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

176 A.D.2d 419, 574 N.Y.S.2d 303, 1991 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 12409, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/binghamton-savings-bank-v-pacific-employers-insurance-nyappdiv-1991.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack