Doret v. Doret

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Doret v. Doret

81 A.D.2d 575, 441 N.Y.S.2d 403, 1981 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 11058

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

DecidedApril 6, 1981

StatusPublished

This text of 81 A.D.2d 575 (Doret v. Doret) 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

Doret v. Doret, 81 A.D.2d 575, 441 N.Y.S.2d 403, 1981 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 11058 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1981).

Pincite

Opinion

— In an action for divorce, plaintiff appeals, as limited by his brief, from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Nassau County, dated October 22, 1980, as granted defendant’s motion for a change of venue from Nassau County to Kings County. Order affirmed insofar as appealed from, with $50 costs and disbursements. A motion for a change of venue pursuant to CPLR 510 (subd 3) is addressed to the sound discretion of the court. Under the facts and circumstances herein, we find that the court did not abuse its discretion and the order should, therefore, not be disturbed (see 2 Weinstein-Korn-Miller, NY Civ Prac, par 510.11; Panicello v Panicello, 73 AD2d 595). Damiani, J.P., Laser, Mangano and Gibbons, JJ., concur.

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

— In an action for divorce, plaintiff appeals, as limited by his brief, from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Nassau County, dated October 22, 1980, as granted defendant’s motion for a change of venue from Nassau County to Kings County. Order affirmed insofar as appealed from, with $50 costs and disbursements. A motion for a change of venue pursuant to CPLR 510 (subd 3) is addressed to the sound discretion of the court. Under the facts and circumstances herein, we find that the court did not abuse its discretion and the order should, therefore, not be disturbed (see 2 Weinstein-Korn-Miller, NY Civ Prac, par 510.11; Panicello v Panicello, 73 AD2d 595). Damiani, J.P., Laser, Mangano and Gibbons, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

81 A.D.2d 575, 441 N.Y.S.2d 403, 1981 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 11058, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/doret-v-doret-nyappdiv-1981.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack