Cafolino v. Winwood Apts., Inc.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Cafolino v. Winwood Apts., Inc.

49 A.D.2d 872, 373 N.Y.S.2d 186, 1975 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 11070

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

DecidedOctober 6, 1975

StatusPublished

This text of 49 A.D.2d 872 (Cafolino v. Winwood Apts., Inc.) 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

Cafolino v. Winwood Apts., Inc., 49 A.D.2d 872, 373 N.Y.S.2d 186, 1975 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 11070 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1975).

Pincite

Opinion

In an action to recover money allegedly loaned to defendant, (1) plaintiff appeals from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County, dated March 24, 1975, as, on reargument, adhered to its original decision granting defendant’s previous motion to change the venue of the action from Kings County to Sullivan County and (2) defendant cross-appeals from so much of the same order as directed it to submit to an examination before trial in New York County. Order affirmed insofar as appealed from, without costs. It was a proper exercise of discretion for Special Term to change the venue to Sullivan County, which had significant contacts with this action, and to order that a deposition of defendant be held in New York County. While discovery is supervised by the court in which the action is pending, we find no violation of this rule and no lack of jurisdiction where, as here, the Kings County court made the discovery [873]*873decision and the change of venue decision simultaneously. Rabin, Acting P. J., Hopkins, Christ, Munder and Shapiro, JJ., concur.

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

In an action to recover money allegedly loaned to defendant, (1) plaintiff appeals from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County, dated March 24, 1975, as, on reargument, adhered to its original decision granting defendant’s previous motion to change the venue of the action from Kings County to Sullivan County and (2) defendant cross-appeals from so much of the same order as directed it to submit to an examination before trial in New York County. Order affirmed insofar as appealed from, without costs. It was a proper exercise of discretion for Special Term to change the venue to Sullivan County, which had significant contacts with this action, and to order that a deposition of defendant be held in New York County. While discovery is supervised by the court in which the action is pending, we find no violation of this rule and no lack of jurisdiction where, as here, the Kings County court made the discovery [873]*873decision and the change of venue decision simultaneously. Rabin, Acting P. J., Hopkins, Christ, Munder and Shapiro, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

49 A.D.2d 872, 373 N.Y.S.2d 186, 1975 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 11070, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/cafolino-v-winwood-apts-inc-nyappdiv-1975.