Mencke v. Goldberg

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Mencke v. Goldberg

208 A.D. 820

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York·Decided March 15, 1924·Published·Cited by 3 cases

Opinion

The motion to change the place of trial from Queens county to Suffolk county should have been granted. The alleged accident occurred in Suffolk county, and it is not contradicted that the defendant and all the witnesses to the accident reside there. The action is transitory in character, and the rule is that other things being equal the action will be tried in the county where the cause of action arose. (Van Alstine v. Burt, 151 App. Div. 81; Fluckiger v. Haber, 144 id. 65; Upjohn v. First Methodist Episcopal Church Soc., 156 id. 147.) The order is, therefore, reversed on the law and the facts, with ten dollars costs and disbursements, and the motion granted, with ten dollars costs. Jayeox, Manning, Kelby, Young and Kapper, JJ., concur.

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

The motion to change the place of trial from Queens county to Suffolk county should have been granted. The alleged accident occurred in Suffolk county, and it is not contradicted that the defendant and all the witnesses to the accident reside there. The action is transitory in character, and the rule is that other things being equal the action will be tried in the county where the cause of action arose. (Van Alstine v. Burt, 151 App. Div. 81; Fluckiger v. Haber, 144 id. 65; Upjohn v. First Methodist Episcopal Church Soc., 156 id. 147.) The order is, therefore, reversed on the law and the facts, with ten dollars costs and disbursements, and the motion granted, with ten dollars costs. Jayeox, Manning, Kelby, Young and Kapper, JJ., concur.

Mencke v. Goldberg, 208 A.D. 820 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1924).

Pincite

208 A.D. 820 (Mencke v. Goldberg) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related