Miszko v. Leeds & Morelli

269 A.D.2d 372, 702 N.Y.S.2d 867, 2000 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 1242
CourtAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York
DecidedFebruary 7, 2000
StatusPublished
Cited by5 cases

This text of 269 A.D.2d 372 (Miszko v. Leeds & Morelli) 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
Miszko v. Leeds & Morelli, 269 A.D.2d 372, 702 N.Y.S.2d 867, 2000 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 1242 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2000).

Opinion

—In an action to recover damages for breach of contract, conversion, and legal malpractice, the plaintiff appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Nassau County (Burke, J.), dated December 18, 1998, which granted the defendants’ motion pursuant to CPLR 510 (3) and CPLR 511 to transfer the venue of this action from Ulster County to Nassau County.

Ordered that the order is reversed, as a matter of discretion, with costs, and the motion is denied, and it is further,

Ordered that the Clerk of the Supreme Court, Nassau County, is directed to transfer the file of the action to the Clerk of the Supreme Court, Ulster County.

In support of their motion to transfer venue, the defendants failed to disclose the addresses of the prospective witnesses, disclose the facts to which they were expected to testify at trial, or establish that they would be inconvenienced in the event that a change of venue were not granted (see, Cumberbatch v Gatehouse Motel & Rest, 265 AD2d 370; O’Brien v Vassar Bros. Hosp., 207 AD2d 169). In addition, the defendants have not offered a valid reason for their failure to submit sworn statements from their proposed witnesses (see, Schneider v Montalbano, 223 AD2d 586).

Therefore, the Supreme Court improvidently exercised its discretion in granting the defendants’ motion to transfer venue to Nassau County. Mangano, P. J., Ritter, Joy, McGinity and Smith, JJ., concur.

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

Related

Goldberg v. Goldberg
65 A.D.3d 1282 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2009)
Fernandes v. Lawrence
290 A.D.2d 412 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2002)
Hakl v. Ginsburg Development Corp.
288 A.D.2d 439 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2001)
H.M.K. v. Margaret Tietz Center for Nursing Care, Inc.
278 A.D.2d 367 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2000)
Vallianos v. Mobile/ Modular Express, Incorporated
274 A.D.2d 576 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2000)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
269 A.D.2d 372, 702 N.Y.S.2d 867, 2000 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 1242, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/miszko-v-leeds-morelli-nyappdiv-2000.