Bruckert-Holland v. Rand

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Bruckert-Holland v. Rand

234 A.D.2d 95, 650 N.Y.S.2d 233, 1996 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 12396

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

DecidedDecember 10, 1996

StatusPublished

This text of 234 A.D.2d 95 (Bruckert-Holland v. Rand) 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

Bruckert-Holland v. Rand, 234 A.D.2d 95, 650 N.Y.S.2d 233, 1996 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 12396 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1996).

Pincite

Opinion

—Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Stephen Crane, J.), entered on July 11, 1995, which denied defendant’s motion for a change of venue to Essex County, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

The motion was properly denied, defendant having failed to comply with the requirements of CPLR 511 (b) necessary to preserve his right to a change of venue under CPLR 510 (1). Further, defendant offered no other reason for changing venue except his own inconvenience, which showing was patently insufficient (see, Rosenthal v Bologna, 211 AD2d 436, 437; Cardona v Aggressive Heating, 180 AD2d 572, 573; Coles v LaGuardia Med. Group, 161 AD2d 166). Concur—Milonas, J. P., Ellerin, Rubin, Kupferman and Nardelli, JJ.

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

—Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Stephen Crane, J.), entered on July 11, 1995, which denied defendant’s motion for a change of venue to Essex County, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

The motion was properly denied, defendant having failed to comply with the requirements of CPLR 511 (b) necessary to preserve his right to a change of venue under CPLR 510 (1). Further, defendant offered no other reason for changing venue except his own inconvenience, which showing was patently insufficient (see, Rosenthal v Bologna, 211 AD2d 436, 437; Cardona v Aggressive Heating, 180 AD2d 572, 573; Coles v LaGuardia Med. Group, 161 AD2d 166). Concur—Milonas, J. P., Ellerin, Rubin, Kupferman and Nardelli, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

234 A.D.2d 95, 650 N.Y.S.2d 233, 1996 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 12396, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/bruckert-holland-v-rand-nyappdiv-1996.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack