Lonstein v. VNV Associates, L.P.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Lonstein v. VNV Associates, L.P.

162 A.D.2d 413

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York·Decided June 28, 1990·Published

Opinion

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Kristin Booth Glen, J.), entered March 6, 1990, which denied the motion by defendants VNV Associates, L.P. and JSM Management Corp. for a change of venue, pursuant to CPLR 510 (3), unanimously affirmed, with costs and disbursements.

Plaintiff, a Queens County resident, commenced a negligence action arising from her slip and fall on the steps of a Queens County commercial establishment owned by VNV Associates, L.P. Venue was properly placed in New York County on the basis of VNV Associates, L.P.’s principal place of business, which was located in Manhattan.

Defendants, who moved for a change of venue to Queens County pursuant to CPLR 510 (3), have the burden of establishing that the convenience of witnesses and the ends of justice will be promoted by a change of venue. (See, Stavredes v United Skates, 87 AD2d 502.) A review of defendants’ moving papers reveals that they have failed to meet that burden. Concur—Kupferman, J. P., Sullivan, Rosenberger, Kassal and Smith, JJ.

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

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Kristin Booth Glen, J.), entered March 6, 1990, which denied the motion by defendants VNV Associates, L.P. and JSM Management Corp. for a change of venue, pursuant to CPLR 510 (3), unanimously affirmed, with costs and disbursements.

Plaintiff, a Queens County resident, commenced a negligence action arising from her slip and fall on the steps of a Queens County commercial establishment owned by VNV Associates, L.P. Venue was properly placed in New York County on the basis of VNV Associates, L.P.’s principal place of business, which was located in Manhattan.

Defendants, who moved for a change of venue to Queens County pursuant to CPLR 510 (3), have the burden of establishing that the convenience of witnesses and the ends of justice will be promoted by a change of venue. (See, Stavredes v United Skates, 87 AD2d 502.) A review of defendants’ moving papers reveals that they have failed to meet that burden. Concur—Kupferman, J. P., Sullivan, Rosenberger, Kassal and Smith, JJ.

Lonstein v. VNV Associates, L.P., 162 A.D.2d 413 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1990).

Pincite

162 A.D.2d 413 (Lonstein v. VNV Associates, L.P.) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related