Caro v. Frasca

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Caro v. Frasca

197 A.D.2d 657, 603 N.Y.S.2d 16, 1993 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 9920

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York·Decided October 25, 1993·Published·Cited by 1 cases

Opinion

—In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, etc., the defendant appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Smith, J.), dated December 5, 1990, which denied his motion for a change of venue.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.

Absent “cogent reasons” to direct otherwise, the venue of a transitory action should be the county where the cause of action arose (see, German v Swendsen, 112 AD2d 139, 140). No such cogent reasons are presented in the record before us. Bracken, J. P., Balletta, Eiber, O’Brien and Santucci, JJ., concur.

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

—In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, etc., the defendant appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Smith, J.), dated December 5, 1990, which denied his motion for a change of venue.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.

Absent “cogent reasons” to direct otherwise, the venue of a transitory action should be the county where the cause of action arose (see, German v Swendsen, 112 AD2d 139, 140). No such cogent reasons are presented in the record before us. Bracken, J. P., Balletta, Eiber, O’Brien and Santucci, JJ., concur.

Caro v. Frasca, 197 A.D.2d 657, 603 N.Y.S.2d 16, 1993 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 9920 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1993).

Pincite

197 A.D.2d 657 (Caro v. Frasca) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related