Dwyer v. Polo Grounds Athletic Club Inc.

New York Supreme Court

Dwyer v. Polo Grounds Athletic Club Inc.

142 Misc. 465, 254 N.Y.S. 575, 1931 N.Y. Misc. LEXIS 970

New York Supreme Court·Decided December 5, 1931·Published

Opinion

Rodenbeck, J.

There is no authority for changing the place of trial to Westchester county. Neither party resides there. The plaintiff resides in Ontario county, and the defendant is a corporation whose principal place of business is in New York county. The moving papers are defective in that they do not show what the proposed witnesses will testify to, so that the court is not able to say whether their testimony is material or not. (Dairymen’s League Co-Operative Assn., Inc., v. Brundo, 131 Misc. 548.)

Motion denied, with ten dollars costs.

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

Rodenbeck, J.

There is no authority for changing the place of trial to Westchester county. Neither party resides there. The plaintiff resides in Ontario county, and the defendant is a corporation whose principal place of business is in New York county. The moving papers are defective in that they do not show what the proposed witnesses will testify to, so that the court is not able to say whether their testimony is material or not. (Dairymen’s League Co-Operative Assn., Inc., v. Brundo, 131 Misc. 548.)

Motion denied, with ten dollars costs.

Dwyer v. Polo Grounds Athletic Club Inc., 142 Misc. 465, 254 N.Y.S. 575, 1931 N.Y. Misc. LEXIS 970 (N.Y. Super. Ct. 1931).

Pincite

142 Misc. 465 (Dwyer v. Polo Grounds Athletic Club Inc.) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related