Malcolm v. Iandoli

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Malcolm v. Iandoli

15 A.D.3d 278, 790 N.Y.S.2d 89, 2005 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 1678

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

DecidedFebruary 17, 2005

StatusPublished

This text of 15 A.D.3d 278 (Malcolm v. Iandoli) 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

Malcolm v. Iandoli, 15 A.D.3d 278, 790 N.Y.S.2d 89, 2005 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 1678 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2005).

Pincite

Opinion

Order, Supreme Court, Bronx County (Sallie Manzanet, J.), entered May 11, 2004, which, in an action for personal injuries, denied defendant’s motion pursuant to CELR 510 (3) to change venue from Bronx County, where plaintiff resides, to Westchester County, where the accident occurred, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

The motion was properly denied for failure to show the availability of the three witnesses named in defendant’s papers in support of the motion, the nature and materiality of their expected testimony and the manner in which they are inconvenienced by the Bronx County venue (see Cardona v Aggressive Heating, 180 AD2d 572, 572 [1992]; Argano v Scuderi, 6 AD3d [279]*279211 [2004]). Concur — Buckley, EJ., Saxe, Friedman, Williams and Sweeny, JJ.

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

Order, Supreme Court, Bronx County (Sallie Manzanet, J.), entered May 11, 2004, which, in an action for personal injuries, denied defendant’s motion pursuant to CELR 510 (3) to change venue from Bronx County, where plaintiff resides, to Westchester County, where the accident occurred, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

The motion was properly denied for failure to show the availability of the three witnesses named in defendant’s papers in support of the motion, the nature and materiality of their expected testimony and the manner in which they are inconvenienced by the Bronx County venue (see Cardona v Aggressive Heating, 180 AD2d 572, 572 [1992]; Argano v Scuderi, 6 AD3d [279]*279211 [2004]). Concur — Buckley, EJ., Saxe, Friedman, Williams and Sweeny, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

15 A.D.3d 278, 790 N.Y.S.2d 89, 2005 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 1678, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/malcolm-v-iandoli-nyappdiv-2005.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack