Garcia v. Doe

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Garcia v. Doe

306 A.D.2d 42, 759 N.Y.S.2d 674, 2003 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 6352

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

DecidedJune 5, 2003

StatusPublished

This text of 306 A.D.2d 42 (Garcia v. Doe) 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

Garcia v. Doe, 306 A.D.2d 42, 759 N.Y.S.2d 674, 2003 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 6352 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2003).

Pincite

Opinion

—Order, Supreme Court, Bronx County (Douglas McKeon, J.), entered November 8, 2002, which, in an action for personal injuries, granted defendants’ motion to change venue from Bronx County to Queens County, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

The motion was properly granted upon the basis of plaintiffs deposition testimony that he resided in Queens County on the date of the accident and continuously thereafter until the date of the deposition, and the absence of any documentary or other persuasive evidence substantiating plaintiffs claims in opposition to the motion that he actually resided in the Bronx and that his memory suffered from the accident (see Roman v Brereton, 182 AD2d 556 [1992]). The motion was promptly made after the deposition (see id.), and the action was properly transferred to Queens County, where the accident occurred (see Jacobo v A.H.A. Gen. Constr., 220 AD2d 300 [1995]). Concur— Buckley, P.J., Mazzarelli, Saxe, Williams and Marlow, JJ.

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

—Order, Supreme Court, Bronx County (Douglas McKeon, J.), entered November 8, 2002, which, in an action for personal injuries, granted defendants’ motion to change venue from Bronx County to Queens County, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

The motion was properly granted upon the basis of plaintiffs deposition testimony that he resided in Queens County on the date of the accident and continuously thereafter until the date of the deposition, and the absence of any documentary or other persuasive evidence substantiating plaintiffs claims in opposition to the motion that he actually resided in the Bronx and that his memory suffered from the accident (see Roman v Brereton, 182 AD2d 556 [1992]). The motion was promptly made after the deposition (see id.), and the action was properly transferred to Queens County, where the accident occurred (see Jacobo v A.H.A. Gen. Constr., 220 AD2d 300 [1995]). Concur— Buckley, P.J., Mazzarelli, Saxe, Williams and Marlow, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

306 A.D.2d 42, 759 N.Y.S.2d 674, 2003 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 6352, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/garcia-v-doe-nyappdiv-2003.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack