Cilmi v. Greenberg

273 A.D.2d 266, 710 N.Y.S.2d 902, 2000 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 6542
CourtAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York
DecidedJune 12, 2000
StatusPublished
Cited by6 cases

This text of 273 A.D.2d 266 (Cilmi v. Greenberg) 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
Cilmi v. Greenberg, 273 A.D.2d 266, 710 N.Y.S.2d 902, 2000 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 6542 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2000).

Opinion

In an action, inter alia, to recover damages for breach of contract, the defendants appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Richmond County (Mastro, J.), entered September 27, [267]*2671999, which denied their cross motion for a change of venue from Richmond County to New York County.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.

A motion for a change of venue pursuant to CPLR 510 (3) based upon the convenience of the witnesses must (1) set forth the names, addresses, and occupations of the prospective witnesses, (2) disclose the facts as to which the proposed witnesses will testify, (3) state whether the witnesses are willing to testify, and (4) explain how these witnesses would be inconvenienced should a change of venue be denied (see, McGarry v Columbia Greene Med. Ctr., 260 AD2d 451; O’Brien v Vassar Bros. Hosp., 207 AD2d 169). The defendants’ submissions failed to satisfy all of the required elements. In addition, all of the witnesses mentioned by the defendants were either the individual defendants themselves, or their employees, whose convenience is not a factor in considering a change of venue based on CPLR 510 (3) (see, Rollinson v Pergament Acquisition Corp., 228 AD2d 186; Flynn v Niagara Univ., 198 AD2d 262). Accordingly, the Supreme Court providently exercised its discretion in denying the defendants’ cross motion. Mangano, P. J., Santucci, Krausman, Florio and Schmidt, JJ., concur.

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

Related

Lapidus v. 1050 Tenants Corp.
94 A.D.3d 950 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2012)
McManmon v. York Hill Housing, Inc.
73 A.D.3d 1137 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2010)
Franklin v. DaimlerChrysler Corp.
306 A.D.2d 243 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2003)
Martinez v. Dutchess Landaq, Inc.
301 A.D.2d 424 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2003)
Curry v. Tysens Park Apartments, L. L. C.
289 A.D.2d 191 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2001)
Daly v. Weintraub
282 A.D.2d 643 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2001)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
273 A.D.2d 266, 710 N.Y.S.2d 902, 2000 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 6542, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/cilmi-v-greenberg-nyappdiv-2000.