Feinberg v. Osczepinski

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Feinberg v. Osczepinski

280 A.D.2d 434, 721 N.Y.S.2d 505, 2001 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 1899

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

DecidedFebruary 27, 2001

StatusPublished

Cited by128 cases

This text of 280 A.D.2d 434 (Feinberg v. Osczepinski) 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

Feinberg v. Osczepinski, 280 A.D.2d 434, 721 N.Y.S.2d 505, 2001 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 1899 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2001).

Pincite

Opinion

—Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Richard Lowe, III, J. ), entered August 1, 2000, which denied defendant-appellant’s motion for a change of venue, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

[435]*435The motion, based on the convenience of material witnesses, was properly denied for failure to identify the witnesses whose convenience is of concern, explain how they will be inconvenienced were venue to be retained here, and describe the nature of their anticipated testimony and how it is material to the issues in the case (see, Cardona v Aggressive Heating, 180 AD2d 572). We reject defendant’s argument that a controlling body of law in this Department uniformly changes venue in transitory actions upon a presumption that they should be tried in the county where they arose. Concur — Mazzarelli, J. P., Ellerin, Wallach, Rubin and Saxe, 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 August 1, 2000, which denied defendant-appellant’s motion for a change of venue, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

[435]*435The motion, based on the convenience of material witnesses, was properly denied for failure to identify the witnesses whose convenience is of concern, explain how they will be inconvenienced were venue to be retained here, and describe the nature of their anticipated testimony and how it is material to the issues in the case (see, Cardona v Aggressive Heating, 180 AD2d 572). We reject defendant’s argument that a controlling body of law in this Department uniformly changes venue in transitory actions upon a presumption that they should be tried in the county where they arose. Concur — Mazzarelli, J. P., Ellerin, Wallach, Rubin and Saxe, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

280 A.D.2d 434, 721 N.Y.S.2d 505, 2001 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 1899, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/feinberg-v-osczepinski-nyappdiv-2001.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack