Jacobson v. Leaseway of Eastern New York, Inc.

107 A.D.2d 798, 484 N.Y.S.2d 630, 1985 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 42717
CourtAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York
DecidedJanuary 28, 1985
StatusPublished
Cited by5 cases

This text of 107 A.D.2d 798 (Jacobson v. Leaseway of Eastern New York, Inc.) 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
Jacobson v. Leaseway of Eastern New York, Inc., 107 A.D.2d 798, 484 N.Y.S.2d 630, 1985 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 42717 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1985).

Opinion

— In two actions arising out of the same motor vehicle accident, to recover damages, inter alia, for wrongful death, Leaseway of Eastern New York, Inc., Glen Mohawk Dairy, Inc., and Arthur T. Schuster, defendants in both actions, appeal from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Westchester County (Delaney, J.), entered September 7, 1983, as, upon their motion (1) for a joint trial of the actions and (2) to place the venue of the actions in Schenectady County, rather than Westchester County, where action No. 1 is pending or Kings County, where action No. 2 is pending, directed that the actions be jointly tried in the Supreme Court, Kings County.

Order reversed insofar as appealed from, with costs to appellants against plaintiff-respondent Bienstock in action No. 2, that branch of the appellants’ motion which was to place the venue of the actions to be jointly tried in Schenectady County granted, and the place of trial of both action No. 1 and action No. 2 is changed to the Supreme Court, Schenectady County.

Special Term abused its discretion in denying appellants’ motion for a change of venue to Schenectady County as that is the location where the accident occurred, where the majority of the nonparty material witnesses reside, and where the calendar is less congested (see Ray v Beauter, 90 AD2d 988). We further find that appellants’ motion was made within a reasonable period of time after commencement of the actions (CPLR 511, subd [a]). Titone, J. P., Mangano, Weinstein and Brown JJ., concur.

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

Related

Unifirst Corp. v. Gaslin
166 A.D.2d 930 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1990)
Creed v. United Hospital
158 A.D.2d 654 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1990)
Thomas v. Small
121 A.D.2d 622 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1986)
Troy Savings Bank v. American Equity Funding, Inc.
120 A.D.2d 828 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1986)
Gkanios v. Siembab
111 A.D.2d 368 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1985)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
107 A.D.2d 798, 484 N.Y.S.2d 630, 1985 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 42717, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/jacobson-v-leaseway-of-eastern-new-york-inc-nyappdiv-1985.