Manzari v. Burrows

89 A.D.3d 440, 931 N.Y.2d 864
Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York·Decided November 1, 2011·Published·Cited by 4 cases

Opinion

Defendants failed to sustain their burden of showing entitlement to a discretionary change of venue pursuant to CPLR 510 (3) (see Aretakis v Tarantino, 300 AD2d 160 [2002]). In particular, defendants failed to present “affidavits or other proofs” from material witnesses claiming that they would be inconvenienced by testifying in New York County (Herrera v R. Conley Inc., 52 AD3d 218, 219 [2008]). Even if such affidavits are not required, defense counsel’s assertion that the inconvenience was “obvious” and “manifest,” is insufficient to meet defendants’ burden (see Hernandez v Rodriguez, 5 AD3d 269, 270 [2004]). In addition, defendants failed to show that the testimony of the purportedly inconvenienced nonparty witnesses was material and necessary (Argano v Scuderi, 6 AD3d 211, 212 [2004]). Concur — Friedman, J.P., Catterson, Moskowitz, Freedman and Abdus-Salaam, JJ.

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

Manzari v. Burrows, 89 A.D.3d 440, 931 N.Y.2d 864 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2011).

89 A.D.3d 440 (Manzari v. Burrows) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Prechtl v. Trane U.S., Inc.
2023 NY Slip Op 00935 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2023)
Marte v. Lampert
2023 NY Slip Op 00375 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2023)