Dontzin v. Digital Rain Partners I, L.L.C

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Dontzin v. Digital Rain Partners I, L.L.C

295 A.D.2d 140, 742 N.Y.S.2d 832, 2002 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 5858

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

DecidedJune 6, 2002

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 295 A.D.2d 140 (Dontzin v. Digital Rain Partners I, L.L.C) 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

Dontzin v. Digital Rain Partners I, L.L.C, 295 A.D.2d 140, 742 N.Y.S.2d 832, 2002 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 5858 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2002).

Pincite

Opinion

—Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Richard Lowe III, J.), entered on or about December 13, 2001, which, inter alia, denied defendant Peter Allan’s cross motion to change the venue of this action from New York County to either Bronx or Queens County, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

The motion court exercised its discretion providently when it denied defendant’s cross motion to change the venue of this action. Although plaintiffs father is a retired Supreme Court Justice who once presided in New York County, there was no demonstration that an impartial trial could not be obtained in that venue (see, Lombardoni v Boccaccio, 160 AD2d 1089, 1091; cf, Kavelman v Taylor, 245 AD2d 9; and cf., Rothwax v Spice-handler, 161 AD2d 184). Concur—Mazzarelli, J.P., Lerner, Rubin, Marlow and Gonzalez, JJ.

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

—Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Richard Lowe III, J.), entered on or about December 13, 2001, which, inter alia, denied defendant Peter Allan’s cross motion to change the venue of this action from New York County to either Bronx or Queens County, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

The motion court exercised its discretion providently when it denied defendant’s cross motion to change the venue of this action. Although plaintiffs father is a retired Supreme Court Justice who once presided in New York County, there was no demonstration that an impartial trial could not be obtained in that venue (see, Lombardoni v Boccaccio, 160 AD2d 1089, 1091; cf, Kavelman v Taylor, 245 AD2d 9; and cf., Rothwax v Spice-handler, 161 AD2d 184). Concur—Mazzarelli, J.P., Lerner, Rubin, Marlow and Gonzalez, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

295 A.D.2d 140, 742 N.Y.S.2d 832, 2002 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 5858, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/dontzin-v-digital-rain-partners-i-llc-nyappdiv-2002.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack