Buccella v. Hofstra University

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Buccella v. Hofstra University

288 A.D.2d 118, 733 N.Y.S.2d 346, 2001 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 11117

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 (Buccella v. Hofstra University) 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

Buccella v. Hofstra University, 288 A.D.2d 118, 733 N.Y.S.2d 346, 2001 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 11117 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2001).

Pincite

Opinion

—Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Louise Gruner Gans, J.), entered on or about September 25, 2000, which denied plaintiffs motion to reargue a prior order granting defendants’ motion to change venue from New York County to Nassau County, deemed to have granted reargument, and, upon re argument, to have adhered to the prior order, and, so considered, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

The motion court, while stating in the order on appeal that reargument is denied, in effect granted reargument in a reconsideration that actually decided the motion on a different ground; accordingly, the order is appealable (see, Centennial Restorations Co. v Wyatt, 248 AD2d 193, 197-198). Pursuant to CPLR 510 (3), venue was properly changed to Nassau County based upon the convenience of material witnesses in a personal injury action that arose in Nassau County (see, Neos v Crabby Joe’s, 241 AD2d 337). 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 (Louise Gruner Gans, J.), entered on or about September 25, 2000, which denied plaintiffs motion to reargue a prior order granting defendants’ motion to change venue from New York County to Nassau County, deemed to have granted reargument, and, upon re argument, to have adhered to the prior order, and, so considered, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

The motion court, while stating in the order on appeal that reargument is denied, in effect granted reargument in a reconsideration that actually decided the motion on a different ground; accordingly, the order is appealable (see, Centennial Restorations Co. v Wyatt, 248 AD2d 193, 197-198). Pursuant to CPLR 510 (3), venue was properly changed to Nassau County based upon the convenience of material witnesses in a personal injury action that arose in Nassau County (see, Neos v Crabby Joe’s, 241 AD2d 337). 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 346, 2001 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 11117, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/buccella-v-hofstra-university-nyappdiv-2001.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack