Gray v. Good

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Gray v. Good

203 A.D.2d 422, 610 N.Y.S.2d 854, 1994 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3983

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

DecidedApril 18, 1994

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 203 A.D.2d 422 (Gray v. Good) 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

Gray v. Good, 203 A.D.2d 422, 610 N.Y.S.2d 854, 1994 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3983 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1994).

Pincite

Opinion

—In a negligence action to recover damages for personal injuries, etc., the defendants appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Vinik, J.), dated August 12, 1992, which denied their motion to change venue from Kings County to Westchester County pursuant to CPLR 510 (3).

Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.

Upon a motion for a change of venue pursuant to CPLR 510 (3) based upon the convenience of witnesses, the movant must establish the identity of the witnesses who allegedly will be inconvenienced, their willingness to testify, and the nature of their anticipated testimony (see, Alexandre v Pepsi-Cola Bottling Co., 150 AD2d 742; Greene v Hillcrest Gen. Hosp., 130 AD2d 621). The defendants failed to satisfy that burden. Accordingly, their motion was properly denied. Thompson, J. P., Rosenblatt, Ritter, Friedmann, and Krausman, JJ., concur.

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

—In a negligence action to recover damages for personal injuries, etc., the defendants appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Vinik, J.), dated August 12, 1992, which denied their motion to change venue from Kings County to Westchester County pursuant to CPLR 510 (3).

Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.

Upon a motion for a change of venue pursuant to CPLR 510 (3) based upon the convenience of witnesses, the movant must establish the identity of the witnesses who allegedly will be inconvenienced, their willingness to testify, and the nature of their anticipated testimony (see, Alexandre v Pepsi-Cola Bottling Co., 150 AD2d 742; Greene v Hillcrest Gen. Hosp., 130 AD2d 621). The defendants failed to satisfy that burden. Accordingly, their motion was properly denied. Thompson, J. P., Rosenblatt, Ritter, Friedmann, and Krausman, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

203 A.D.2d 422, 610 N.Y.S.2d 854, 1994 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3983, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/gray-v-good-nyappdiv-1994.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack