Erskine v. Burke Scaffolding Corp.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Erskine v. Burke Scaffolding Corp.

202 A.D.2d 389, 608 N.Y.S.2d 519, 1994 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 1924

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

DecidedMarch 7, 1994

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 202 A.D.2d 389 (Erskine v. Burke Scaffolding Corp.) 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

Erskine v. Burke Scaffolding Corp., 202 A.D.2d 389, 608 N.Y.S.2d 519, 1994 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 1924 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1994).

Pincite

Opinion

—In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, etc., the defendants appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Golden, J.), dated January 13, 1992, which denied their motion for a change of venue pursuant to CPLR 510 (3) from Kings County to Richmond County.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.

The defendants did not identify their witnesses who allegedly would be inconvenienced, their willingness to testify, and the nature of their anticipated testimony. Accordingly, they failed to satisfy their burden of establishing a basis for a change of venue pursuant to CPLR 510 (3) (see, Alexandre v Pepsi-Cola Bottling Co., 150 AD2d 742). Sullivan, J. P., Pizzuto, Joy and Goldstein, JJ., concur.

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

—In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, etc., the defendants appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Golden, J.), dated January 13, 1992, which denied their motion for a change of venue pursuant to CPLR 510 (3) from Kings County to Richmond County.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.

The defendants did not identify their witnesses who allegedly would be inconvenienced, their willingness to testify, and the nature of their anticipated testimony. Accordingly, they failed to satisfy their burden of establishing a basis for a change of venue pursuant to CPLR 510 (3) (see, Alexandre v Pepsi-Cola Bottling Co., 150 AD2d 742). Sullivan, J. P., Pizzuto, Joy and Goldstein, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

202 A.D.2d 389, 608 N.Y.S.2d 519, 1994 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 1924, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/erskine-v-burke-scaffolding-corp-nyappdiv-1994.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack