Mead v. Louer

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Mead v. Louer

263 A.D. 783, 31 N.Y.S.2d 275, 1941 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4911

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

DecidedNovember 26, 1941

StatusPublished

This text of 263 A.D. 783 (Mead v. Louer) 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

Mead v. Louer, 263 A.D. 783, 31 N.Y.S.2d 275, 1941 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4911 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1941).

Pincite

Opinion

Defendant appeals

from an order of the Saratoga Special Term of the Supreme Court denying his motion to change the place of trial in each of these actions from Saratoga county to Schenectady county. The actions were brought to recover damages for personal injuries and .damage to property claimed to have been sustained on May 24, 1939, when one of the defendant’s trolley cars' struck a truck in which plaintiffs were riding at a grade crossing in Saratoga county. The cases were tried in Saratoga county and plaintiffs recovered verdicts which were affirmed by this court (260 App. Div. 963) but reversed by the Court of Appeals (285 N. Y. 230) and new trials were granted. Thereafter defendant made his motion on the ground that an impartial trial of the actions cannot be had in Saratoga county. The Special Term properly exercised its discretion in denying the motion and no proof is presented by appellant to indicate that an impartial trial cannot be had in [784]*784Saratoga county. Order unanimously affirmed, with ten dollars costs and disbursements. Present — Hill, P. J., Crapser, Bliss, Heffernan and Foster, JJ.

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

Defendant appeals

from an order of the Saratoga Special Term of the Supreme Court denying his motion to change the place of trial in each of these actions from Saratoga county to Schenectady county. The actions were brought to recover damages for personal injuries and .damage to property claimed to have been sustained on May 24, 1939, when one of the defendant’s trolley cars' struck a truck in which plaintiffs were riding at a grade crossing in Saratoga county. The cases were tried in Saratoga county and plaintiffs recovered verdicts which were affirmed by this court (260 App. Div. 963) but reversed by the Court of Appeals (285 N. Y. 230) and new trials were granted. Thereafter defendant made his motion on the ground that an impartial trial of the actions cannot be had in Saratoga county. The Special Term properly exercised its discretion in denying the motion and no proof is presented by appellant to indicate that an impartial trial cannot be had in [784]*784Saratoga county. Order unanimously affirmed, with ten dollars costs and disbursements. Present — Hill, P. J., Crapser, Bliss, Heffernan and Foster, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

263 A.D. 783, 31 N.Y.S.2d 275, 1941 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4911, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/mead-v-louer-nyappdiv-1941.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack