Fishman v. Fishman

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Fishman v. Fishman

20 A.D.2d 941, 248 N.Y.S.2d 916

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

DecidedApril 29, 1964

StatusPublished

Cited by4 cases

This text of 20 A.D.2d 941 (Fishman v. Fishman) 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

Fishman v. Fishman, 20 A.D.2d 941, 248 N.Y.S.2d 916 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1964).

Pincite

Opinion

Appeal from an order of Special Term, Supreme Court, denying a motion for a change of venue from Ulster to Westchester County on the ground there is reason to believe that an impartial trial cannot be had in Ulster County. The affidavit of the attorney for the defendant, as the main basis for the motion, alleged that his client cannot obtain a fair trial in Ulster County because the attorney for the plaintiff is employed by one of the Justices of the Supreme Court in the Third Judicial District. The mere belief or feeling, such as expressed here, is not suffiicent grounds for the granting of the motion. (Noonan v. Luther, 128 App. Div. 673.) We perceive no reason for interfering with the exercise of the sound discretion of Special Term. Order affirmed, without costs. Gibson, P. J., Herlihy, Reynolds, Taylor and Aulisi, JJ., concur.

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

Appeal from an order of Special Term, Supreme Court, denying a motion for a change of venue from Ulster to Westchester County on the ground there is reason to believe that an impartial trial cannot be had in Ulster County. The affidavit of the attorney for the defendant, as the main basis for the motion, alleged that his client cannot obtain a fair trial in Ulster County because the attorney for the plaintiff is employed by one of the Justices of the Supreme Court in the Third Judicial District. The mere belief or feeling, such as expressed here, is not suffiicent grounds for the granting of the motion. (Noonan v. Luther, 128 App. Div. 673.) We perceive no reason for interfering with the exercise of the sound discretion of Special Term. Order affirmed, without costs. Gibson, P. J., Herlihy, Reynolds, Taylor and Aulisi, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

20 A.D.2d 941, 248 N.Y.S.2d 916, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/fishman-v-fishman-nyappdiv-1964.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack