Maynard v. Elrond Realty Corp.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Maynard v. Elrond Realty Corp.

170 A.D.2d 401

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

DecidedFebruary 28, 1991

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 170 A.D.2d 401 (Maynard v. Elrond Realty Corp.) 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

Maynard v. Elrond Realty Corp., 170 A.D.2d 401 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1991).

Pincite

Opinion

Order, Supreme Court, Bronx County (Alan Saks, J.), entered on or about June 1, 1990, which, inter alia, denied Metro Management & Development, Inc.’s motion for a change of venue pursuant to CPLR 510 (3), unanimously affirmed, with costs.

We find the IAS court properly exercised its discretion in denying defendant Metro’s motion to change venue as it is clear from the record that Metro has not adequately set forth the names and addresses of witnesses who would be inconvenienced by a change of venue, as well as their expected testimony, and how they would be inconvenienced by having to testify in Bronx County as opposed to Nassau County (see, Firoozan v Key Food Supermarket, 151 AD2d 334). Nor was it an abuse of discretion to deny the motion unconditionally, without granting leave to renew. Concur—Murphy, P. J., Sullivan, Rosenberger, Ross and Asch, JJ.

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

Order, Supreme Court, Bronx County (Alan Saks, J.), entered on or about June 1, 1990, which, inter alia, denied Metro Management & Development, Inc.’s motion for a change of venue pursuant to CPLR 510 (3), unanimously affirmed, with costs.

We find the IAS court properly exercised its discretion in denying defendant Metro’s motion to change venue as it is clear from the record that Metro has not adequately set forth the names and addresses of witnesses who would be inconvenienced by a change of venue, as well as their expected testimony, and how they would be inconvenienced by having to testify in Bronx County as opposed to Nassau County (see, Firoozan v Key Food Supermarket, 151 AD2d 334). Nor was it an abuse of discretion to deny the motion unconditionally, without granting leave to renew. Concur—Murphy, P. J., Sullivan, Rosenberger, Ross and Asch, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

170 A.D.2d 401, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/maynard-v-elrond-realty-corp-nyappdiv-1991.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack