Carroll v. American Honda Motor Co.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Carroll v. American Honda Motor Co.

196 A.D.2d 757, 602 N.Y.S.2d 12

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

DecidedSeptember 23, 1993

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 196 A.D.2d 757 (Carroll v. American Honda Motor Co.) 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

Carroll v. American Honda Motor Co., 196 A.D.2d 757, 602 N.Y.S.2d 12 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1993).

Pincite

Opinion

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Edward Lehner, J.), entered on or about September 21, 1992, which granted defendants’ motion for a change of venue from New York County to Westchester County, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

Defendants satisfied their burden of showing that this transitory action should be tried in the county where the accident occurred, and that decision will not be disturbed in the absence of a showing of an abuse of discretion (Paddock Constr. v Thomason Indus. Corp., 133 AD2d 20, 22). The paramedic who treated plaintiff at the scene and the fire and police personnel who responded are Westchester County employees and residents whose convenience was properly given priority over that of plaintiffs treating physicians and family members (Quiles v Orsi, 182 AD2d 499). Plaintiffs contention that his physical disability presents him with a significant hardship in having to travel to Westchester County is rebutted by statements he made in his application for renewal of his driver’s license. Finally, plaintiffs alternative request for a transfer of venue to Queens County was properly denied in light of the fact that his driver’s license application lists his address as Nassau County. Concur—Rosenberger, J. P., Asch, Kassal and Rubin, JJ.

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

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Edward Lehner, J.), entered on or about September 21, 1992, which granted defendants’ motion for a change of venue from New York County to Westchester County, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

Defendants satisfied their burden of showing that this transitory action should be tried in the county where the accident occurred, and that decision will not be disturbed in the absence of a showing of an abuse of discretion (Paddock Constr. v Thomason Indus. Corp., 133 AD2d 20, 22). The paramedic who treated plaintiff at the scene and the fire and police personnel who responded are Westchester County employees and residents whose convenience was properly given priority over that of plaintiffs treating physicians and family members (Quiles v Orsi, 182 AD2d 499). Plaintiffs contention that his physical disability presents him with a significant hardship in having to travel to Westchester County is rebutted by statements he made in his application for renewal of his driver’s license. Finally, plaintiffs alternative request for a transfer of venue to Queens County was properly denied in light of the fact that his driver’s license application lists his address as Nassau County. Concur—Rosenberger, J. P., Asch, Kassal and Rubin, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

196 A.D.2d 757, 602 N.Y.S.2d 12, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/carroll-v-american-honda-motor-co-nyappdiv-1993.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack