Franklin v. DaimlerChrysler Corp.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Franklin v. DaimlerChrysler Corp.

306 A.D.2d 243, 760 N.Y.S.2d 332, 2003 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 6217

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

DecidedJune 2, 2003

StatusPublished

This text of 306 A.D.2d 243 (Franklin v. DaimlerChrysler 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

Franklin v. DaimlerChrysler Corp., 306 A.D.2d 243, 760 N.Y.S.2d 332, 2003 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 6217 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2003).

Pincite

Opinion

—In an action, inter alia, to recover damages for breach of written and implied warranties, the defendants appeal, as limited by their brief, from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Rockland County (Bergerman, J.), dated May 30, 2002, as denied their motion pursuant to CPLR 510 (3) to change venue of the action from Rockland County to Onondaga County.

Ordered that the order is affirmed insofar as appealed from, with costs.

The defendants failed to demonstrate that any nonparty witnesses would be inconvenienced should a change of venue be denied. Consequently, the Supreme Court providently exercised its discretion in denying their motion (see Curry v Tysens Park Apts., 289 AD2d 191 [2001]; Cilmi v Greenberg, Trager, Toplitz & Herbst, 273 AD2d 266 [2000]; O’Brien v Vassar Bros. Hosp., 207 AD2d 169, 172-173 [1995]). Altman, J.P., Krausman, Gold-stein, H. Miller and Crane, JJ., concur.

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

—In an action, inter alia, to recover damages for breach of written and implied warranties, the defendants appeal, as limited by their brief, from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Rockland County (Bergerman, J.), dated May 30, 2002, as denied their motion pursuant to CPLR 510 (3) to change venue of the action from Rockland County to Onondaga County.

Ordered that the order is affirmed insofar as appealed from, with costs.

The defendants failed to demonstrate that any nonparty witnesses would be inconvenienced should a change of venue be denied. Consequently, the Supreme Court providently exercised its discretion in denying their motion (see Curry v Tysens Park Apts., 289 AD2d 191 [2001]; Cilmi v Greenberg, Trager, Toplitz & Herbst, 273 AD2d 266 [2000]; O’Brien v Vassar Bros. Hosp., 207 AD2d 169, 172-173 [1995]). Altman, J.P., Krausman, Gold-stein, H. Miller and Crane, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

306 A.D.2d 243, 760 N.Y.S.2d 332, 2003 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 6217, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/franklin-v-daimlerchrysler-corp-nyappdiv-2003.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack