Caro v. Frasca

197 A.D.2d 657, 603 N.Y.S.2d 16, 1993 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 9920
CourtAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York
DecidedOctober 25, 1993
StatusPublished
Cited by1 cases

This text of 197 A.D.2d 657 (Caro v. Frasca) 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
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).

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

Related

O'Brien v. Vassar Bros. Hospital
207 A.D.2d 169 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1995)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
197 A.D.2d 657, 603 N.Y.S.2d 16, 1993 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 9920, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/caro-v-frasca-nyappdiv-1993.