Carrasco v. Cablevision Systems Corp.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Carrasco v. Cablevision Systems Corp.

248 A.D.2d 122, 669 N.Y.S.2d 808, 1998 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 1912

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

DecidedMarch 3, 1998

StatusPublished

Cited by4 cases

This text of 248 A.D.2d 122 (Carrasco v. Cablevision Systems Corp.) 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

Carrasco v. Cablevision Systems Corp., 248 A.D.2d 122, 669 N.Y.S.2d 808, 1998 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 1912 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1998).

Pincite

Opinion

—Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Louise Gruner Gans, J.), entered April 8, 1997, which denied defendant’s motion to change venue from New York County to Nassau County, and granted plaintiff’s cross motion to change venue to Kings County, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

[123]*123Defendant’s motion to change venue was not timely made within 15 days after service of its answer with a demand for a change of venue, and thus the motion was addressed to the court’s discretion (see, Gousgounis v Bravor Plumbing Heating Co., 155 AD2d 269, 270). Nor did plaintiffs initial choice of an improper county preclude the court from entertaining his cross motion for a change of venue to Kings County as a matter of discretion (see, Berberich v York Scaffold Equip. Corp., 177 AD2d 451, 451-452). The court properly exercised its discretion on both motions in consideration of the convenience of plaintiffs three treating physicians with offices in Kings County (see, Schneeweiss v Pelkey, 138 AD2d 271). Concur — Sullivan, J. P., Rosenberger, Ellerin and Tom, 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 April 8, 1997, which denied defendant’s motion to change venue from New York County to Nassau County, and granted plaintiff’s cross motion to change venue to Kings County, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

[123]*123Defendant’s motion to change venue was not timely made within 15 days after service of its answer with a demand for a change of venue, and thus the motion was addressed to the court’s discretion (see, Gousgounis v Bravor Plumbing Heating Co., 155 AD2d 269, 270). Nor did plaintiffs initial choice of an improper county preclude the court from entertaining his cross motion for a change of venue to Kings County as a matter of discretion (see, Berberich v York Scaffold Equip. Corp., 177 AD2d 451, 451-452). The court properly exercised its discretion on both motions in consideration of the convenience of plaintiffs three treating physicians with offices in Kings County (see, Schneeweiss v Pelkey, 138 AD2d 271). Concur — Sullivan, J. P., Rosenberger, Ellerin and Tom, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

248 A.D.2d 122, 669 N.Y.S.2d 808, 1998 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 1912, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/carrasco-v-cablevision-systems-corp-nyappdiv-1998.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack