DiPalma v. Long Island Rail Road

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

DiPalma v. Long Island Rail Road

189 A.D.2d 593, 592 N.Y.S.2d 51, 1993 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 39

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

DecidedJanuary 7, 1993

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 189 A.D.2d 593 (DiPalma v. Long Island Rail Road) 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

DiPalma v. Long Island Rail Road, 189 A.D.2d 593, 592 N.Y.S.2d 51, 1993 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 39 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1993).

Pincite

Opinion

— Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Diane Lebedeff, J.), entered on or about October 16, 1991, which denied defendant’s motion for a change of venue, to Suffolk County, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

There being no dispute that venue was properly placed in New York County at the time the action was commenced (CPLR 505 [a]; 503 [c]; Noonan v Long Is. R. R., 158 AD2d 392, 393), defendant’s motion can only be based upon the convenience of material witnesses and the ends of justice (CPLR 510 [594]*594[3]). Such a motion must be supported by an affidavit that specifies the names and addresses of the proposed witnesses, the essence of their expected testimony, and the inconvenience they would suffer if required to testify in the county of original venue (Dashman v Really Useful Theatre Co., 167 AD2d 325, 326). Defendant’s motion papers fail to make such a showing. Concur — Milonas, J. P., Ellerin, Kupferman and Kassal, JJ.

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

— Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Diane Lebedeff, J.), entered on or about October 16, 1991, which denied defendant’s motion for a change of venue, to Suffolk County, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

There being no dispute that venue was properly placed in New York County at the time the action was commenced (CPLR 505 [a]; 503 [c]; Noonan v Long Is. R. R., 158 AD2d 392, 393), defendant’s motion can only be based upon the convenience of material witnesses and the ends of justice (CPLR 510 [594]*594[3]). Such a motion must be supported by an affidavit that specifies the names and addresses of the proposed witnesses, the essence of their expected testimony, and the inconvenience they would suffer if required to testify in the county of original venue (Dashman v Really Useful Theatre Co., 167 AD2d 325, 326). Defendant’s motion papers fail to make such a showing. Concur — Milonas, J. P., Ellerin, Kupferman and Kassal, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

189 A.D.2d 593, 592 N.Y.S.2d 51, 1993 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 39, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/dipalma-v-long-island-rail-road-nyappdiv-1993.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack