Manzari v. Burrows

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Manzari v. Burrows

89 A.D.3d 440, 931 N.Y.2d 864

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

DecidedNovember 1, 2011

StatusPublished

Cited by4 cases

This text of 89 A.D.3d 440 (Manzari v. Burrows) 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

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

Pincite

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

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.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

89 A.D.3d 440, 931 N.Y.2d 864, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/manzari-v-burrows-nyappdiv-2011.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack