Lada v. Cester

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Lada v. Cester

22 A.D.2d 642, 252 N.Y.S.2d 874, 1964 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3157

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

DecidedOctober 1, 1964

StatusPublished

This text of 22 A.D.2d 642 (Lada v. Cester) 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

Lada v. Cester, 22 A.D.2d 642, 252 N.Y.S.2d 874, 1964 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3157 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1964).

Pincite

Opinion

Order entered on January 23, 1964, denying motion for a change of venue to Suffolk County unanimously reversed, on the law and in the exercise of discretion, without costs, and motion granted. It appears that the automobile accident which is the basis of this suit took place in Suffolk County, and that all persons involved in it are residents of that county. So are the physicians who treated plaintiffs and the police officers who investigated the accident. The sole [643]*643grounds urged for denial of the motion are that the infant plaintiffs, have been placed in the custody of an organization whose home office is located in this county. That this will not serve to defeat the motion can be seen from the disposition in Slavin v. Whispell, 5 A D 2d 296, and the authorities therein collated. (See, also, Fisher v. Rothrum, 9 A D 2d 734.) In view of the fact that this application was not made promptly, no costs are allowed. Concur — Breitel, J. P., Yalente, McNally, Eager and Steuer, JJ.

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

Order entered on January 23, 1964, denying motion for a change of venue to Suffolk County unanimously reversed, on the law and in the exercise of discretion, without costs, and motion granted. It appears that the automobile accident which is the basis of this suit took place in Suffolk County, and that all persons involved in it are residents of that county. So are the physicians who treated plaintiffs and the police officers who investigated the accident. The sole [643]*643grounds urged for denial of the motion are that the infant plaintiffs, have been placed in the custody of an organization whose home office is located in this county. That this will not serve to defeat the motion can be seen from the disposition in Slavin v. Whispell, 5 A D 2d 296, and the authorities therein collated. (See, also, Fisher v. Rothrum, 9 A D 2d 734.) In view of the fact that this application was not made promptly, no costs are allowed. Concur — Breitel, J. P., Yalente, McNally, Eager and Steuer, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

22 A.D.2d 642, 252 N.Y.S.2d 874, 1964 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3157, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/lada-v-cester-nyappdiv-1964.