Hartigan v. Kurian

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Hartigan v. Kurian

224 A.D.2d 299, 638 N.Y.S.2d 33, 1996 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 1086

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

DecidedFebruary 15, 1996

StatusPublished

Cited by4 cases

This text of 224 A.D.2d 299 (Hartigan v. Kurian) 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

Hartigan v. Kurian, 224 A.D.2d 299, 638 N.Y.S.2d 33, 1996 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 1086 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1996).

Pincite

Opinion

—Order, Supreme Court, Bronx County (Bertram Katz, J.), entered on or about June 27, 1995, which, inter alia, denied defendants Kurian and Palmer’s motion for a change of venue to Westchester County pursuant to CPLR 510 (3), unanimously affirmed, with costs.

A motion to change venue on the ground of the convenience of witnesses is addressed to the sound discretion of the trial court (see, Pittman v Maher, 202 AD2d 172, 176). The general statements of several nonparty post-operative treating physicians that it would be more convenient for them to testify in Westchester County, rather than Bronx County, are insufficient to warrant a change of venue (see, Clark v New Rochelle Hosp. Med. Ctr., 170 AD2d 271), especially in view of the long delay in making the motion. Concur — Sullivan, J. P., Milonas, Ellerin, Rubin and Kupferman, JJ.

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

—Order, Supreme Court, Bronx County (Bertram Katz, J.), entered on or about June 27, 1995, which, inter alia, denied defendants Kurian and Palmer’s motion for a change of venue to Westchester County pursuant to CPLR 510 (3), unanimously affirmed, with costs.

A motion to change venue on the ground of the convenience of witnesses is addressed to the sound discretion of the trial court (see, Pittman v Maher, 202 AD2d 172, 176). The general statements of several nonparty post-operative treating physicians that it would be more convenient for them to testify in Westchester County, rather than Bronx County, are insufficient to warrant a change of venue (see, Clark v New Rochelle Hosp. Med. Ctr., 170 AD2d 271), especially in view of the long delay in making the motion. Concur — Sullivan, J. P., Milonas, Ellerin, Rubin and Kupferman, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

224 A.D.2d 299, 638 N.Y.S.2d 33, 1996 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 1086, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/hartigan-v-kurian-nyappdiv-1996.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack