Blake v. University of Rochester

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Blake v. University of Rochester

288 A.D.2d 118, 733 N.Y.S.2d 347, 2001 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 11118

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

DecidedNovember 20, 2001

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 288 A.D.2d 118 (Blake v. University of Rochester) 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

Blake v. University of Rochester, 288 A.D.2d 118, 733 N.Y.S.2d 347, 2001 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 11118 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2001).

Pincite

Opinion

—Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Paula Omansky, J.), entered May 21, 2001, which denied defendant’s motion pursuant to CPLR 510 (3) for a change of venue to Monroe County, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

The motion was properly denied for failure to describe the substance and explain the materiality of the expected testimony of the only witness who defendant asserts would be inconvenienced by a trial in New York County (see, Pellegrino v File, 283 AD2d 266; Moye v H.L. Green, Inc., 159 AD2d 242). In addition, both plaintiff and his treating physician reside in New York County. Concur — Tom, J. P., Andrias, Lerner, Saxe and Buckley, JJ.

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

—Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Paula Omansky, J.), entered May 21, 2001, which denied defendant’s motion pursuant to CPLR 510 (3) for a change of venue to Monroe County, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

The motion was properly denied for failure to describe the substance and explain the materiality of the expected testimony of the only witness who defendant asserts would be inconvenienced by a trial in New York County (see, Pellegrino v File, 283 AD2d 266; Moye v H.L. Green, Inc., 159 AD2d 242). In addition, both plaintiff and his treating physician reside in New York County. Concur — Tom, J. P., Andrias, Lerner, Saxe and Buckley, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

288 A.D.2d 118, 733 N.Y.S.2d 347, 2001 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 11118, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/blake-v-university-of-rochester-nyappdiv-2001.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack