Cepin v. Hernandez

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Cepin v. Hernandez

245 A.D.2d 206, 666 N.Y.S.2d 620, 1997 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 13320

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

DecidedDecember 23, 1997

StatusPublished

This text of 245 A.D.2d 206 (Cepin v. Hernandez) 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

Cepin v. Hernandez, 245 A.D.2d 206, 666 N.Y.S.2d 620, 1997 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 13320 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1997).

Pincite

Opinion

—Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Barbara Kapnick, J.), entered April 16, 1997, which denied defendant Carey’s motion for a change of venue from New York County to Orleans County, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

The court properly exercised its discretion in denying defendant’s motion to change venue from New York to Orleans County in light of the fact that the plaintiff and one of the defendants reside in New York County and, furthermore, that the majority of the non-party witnesses, including two eyewitnesses and several physicians who treated plaintiff in New York County and who reside in or near that county, would be inconvenienced by having to travel to a distant county (Schneeweiss v Pelkey, 138 AD2d 271).

We have considered appellant’s remaining arguments and find them to be without merit. Concur—Murphy, P. J., Milonas, Wallach, Rubin and Mazzarelli, JJ.

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

—Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Barbara Kapnick, J.), entered April 16, 1997, which denied defendant Carey’s motion for a change of venue from New York County to Orleans County, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

The court properly exercised its discretion in denying defendant’s motion to change venue from New York to Orleans County in light of the fact that the plaintiff and one of the defendants reside in New York County and, furthermore, that the majority of the non-party witnesses, including two eyewitnesses and several physicians who treated plaintiff in New York County and who reside in or near that county, would be inconvenienced by having to travel to a distant county (Schneeweiss v Pelkey, 138 AD2d 271).

We have considered appellant’s remaining arguments and find them to be without merit. Concur—Murphy, P. J., Milonas, Wallach, Rubin and Mazzarelli, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

245 A.D.2d 206, 666 N.Y.S.2d 620, 1997 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 13320, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/cepin-v-hernandez-nyappdiv-1997.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack