Cramer v. Cohn

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Cramer v. Cohn

257 A.D. 1098, 14 N.Y.S.2d 844, 1939 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 9235

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York·Decided September 27, 1939·Published·Cited by 3 cases

Opinion

Order affirmed, with ten dollars costs and disbursements. Memorandum: We disregard the convenience of six of defendants’ proposed witnesses who, according to defendants’ affidavits filed in support of the motion, will testify as experts. (Seafir v. Shutts, 190 App. Div. 518; Quinn v. Brooklyn Heights B. R. Co., 88 id. 57, 59.) The defendants have failed to establish that the convenience of a greater number of material witnesses and the ends of justice will be promoted by the change of venue sought. All concur. (The order denies a motion for change of venue. Present — Crosby, Lewis, Cunningham, Taylor and Dowling, JJ.

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

Order affirmed, with ten dollars costs and disbursements. Memorandum: We disregard the convenience of six of defendants’ proposed witnesses who, according to defendants’ affidavits filed in support of the motion, will testify as experts. (Seafir v. Shutts, 190 App. Div. 518; Quinn v. Brooklyn Heights B. R. Co., 88 id. 57, 59.) The defendants have failed to establish that the convenience of a greater number of material witnesses and the ends of justice will be promoted by the change of venue sought. All concur. (The order denies a motion for change of venue. Present — Crosby, Lewis, Cunningham, Taylor and Dowling, JJ.

Cramer v. Cohn, 257 A.D. 1098, 14 N.Y.S.2d 844, 1939 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 9235 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1939).

Pincite

257 A.D. 1098 (Cramer v. Cohn) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related