Bisbano v. Schoenbach

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Bisbano v. Schoenbach

166 A.D.2d 153

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

DecidedOctober 2, 1990

StatusPublished

This text of 166 A.D.2d 153 (Bisbano v. Schoenbach) 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

Bisbano v. Schoenbach, 166 A.D.2d 153 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1990).

Pincite

Opinion

Order of Supreme Court, Bronx County (Anita Florio, J.), entered July 21, 1989, which, inter alia, denied defendant’s motion for a change of venue from Bronx County to Westchester County, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

Although the alleged malpractice occurred in Westchester County, where the plaintiff resides, the defendant’s motion to [154]*154change venue was properly denied. Defendant resides in Bronx County, therefore venue in that county is proper (CPLR 503 [a]). A transitory action should, as a general rule, be tried where the cause of action arises. However, where plaintiffs choice of venue is otherwise proper, the failure of defendant to provide a list of prospective witnesses, and a statement as to the nature of their testimony and how they would be inconvenienced, is fatal to a motion (Firoozan v Key Food Supermarket, 151 AD2d 334). Concur—Murphy, P. J., Sullivan, Carro and Milonas, JJ.

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

Order of Supreme Court, Bronx County (Anita Florio, J.), entered July 21, 1989, which, inter alia, denied defendant’s motion for a change of venue from Bronx County to Westchester County, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

Although the alleged malpractice occurred in Westchester County, where the plaintiff resides, the defendant’s motion to [154]*154change venue was properly denied. Defendant resides in Bronx County, therefore venue in that county is proper (CPLR 503 [a]). A transitory action should, as a general rule, be tried where the cause of action arises. However, where plaintiffs choice of venue is otherwise proper, the failure of defendant to provide a list of prospective witnesses, and a statement as to the nature of their testimony and how they would be inconvenienced, is fatal to a motion (Firoozan v Key Food Supermarket, 151 AD2d 334). Concur—Murphy, P. J., Sullivan, Carro and Milonas, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

166 A.D.2d 153, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/bisbano-v-schoenbach-nyappdiv-1990.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack