Groos v. New York Telephone Co.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Groos v. New York Telephone Co.

216 A.D.2d 103, 628 N.Y.S.2d 104, 1995 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 6354

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

DecidedJune 15, 1995

StatusPublished

This text of 216 A.D.2d 103 (Groos v. New York Telephone Co.) 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

Groos v. New York Telephone Co., 216 A.D.2d 103, 628 N.Y.S.2d 104, 1995 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 6354 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1995).

Pincite

Opinion

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Carol Huff, J.), entered August 12, 1994, which granted defendant-respondent’s motion for a change of venue from New York County to Westchester County pursuant to CPLR 510 (3), unanimously affirmed, without costs.

[104]*104The IAS Court properly exercised its discretion in changing venue to Westchester County, where the cause of action arose, the majority of material witnesses work or reside, the police records are located, and plaintiff received most of his medical treatment (Toro v Gracin, 148 AD2d 364). Nor was the motion untimely (supra; compare, Lalka v Massafra, 167 AD2d 265, 266). Concur—Sullivan, J. P., Ellerin, Asch, Nardelli and Williams, JJ.

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

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Carol Huff, J.), entered August 12, 1994, which granted defendant-respondent’s motion for a change of venue from New York County to Westchester County pursuant to CPLR 510 (3), unanimously affirmed, without costs.

[104]*104The IAS Court properly exercised its discretion in changing venue to Westchester County, where the cause of action arose, the majority of material witnesses work or reside, the police records are located, and plaintiff received most of his medical treatment (Toro v Gracin, 148 AD2d 364). Nor was the motion untimely (supra; compare, Lalka v Massafra, 167 AD2d 265, 266). Concur—Sullivan, J. P., Ellerin, Asch, Nardelli and Williams, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

216 A.D.2d 103, 628 N.Y.S.2d 104, 1995 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 6354, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/groos-v-new-york-telephone-co-nyappdiv-1995.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack