Jennifer M. v. Syracuse University

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Jennifer M. v. Syracuse University

155 A.D.2d 285

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

DecidedNovember 14, 1989

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 155 A.D.2d 285 (Jennifer M. v. Syracuse University) 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

Jennifer M. v. Syracuse University, 155 A.D.2d 285 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1989).

Pincite

Opinion

— Order of the Supreme Court, New York County (C. Beauchamp Ciparick, J.), entered on September 7, 1988, denying defendant’s motion for a change of venue to Onondaga County and granting plaintiffs cross motion for an order retaining venue in New York County, unanimously affirmed, with costs and disbursements.

Defendant’s motion, insofar as based upon impropriety of venue (CPLR 510 [1]), is untimely (CPLR 511 [a]). Since defendant has not met its burden of setting forth the identities of the witnesses as well as the subject matter of their testimony to justify a change of venue for the convenience of witnesses (see, Stavredes v United Skates, 87 AD2d 502; CPLR 510 [3]), it was not an abuse of discretion for the IAS court to have denied the motion. Concur — Murphy, P. J., Sullivan, Wallach and Smith, JJ.

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

— Order of the Supreme Court, New York County (C. Beauchamp Ciparick, J.), entered on September 7, 1988, denying defendant’s motion for a change of venue to Onondaga County and granting plaintiffs cross motion for an order retaining venue in New York County, unanimously affirmed, with costs and disbursements.

Defendant’s motion, insofar as based upon impropriety of venue (CPLR 510 [1]), is untimely (CPLR 511 [a]). Since defendant has not met its burden of setting forth the identities of the witnesses as well as the subject matter of their testimony to justify a change of venue for the convenience of witnesses (see, Stavredes v United Skates, 87 AD2d 502; CPLR 510 [3]), it was not an abuse of discretion for the IAS court to have denied the motion. Concur — Murphy, P. J., Sullivan, Wallach and Smith, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

155 A.D.2d 285, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/jennifer-m-v-syracuse-university-nyappdiv-1989.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack