Molod v. Amundsen

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Molod v. Amundsen

194 A.D.2d 429, 599 N.Y.S.2d 253, 1993 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 6270

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

DecidedJune 17, 1993

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 194 A.D.2d 429 (Molod v. Amundsen) 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

Molod v. Amundsen, 194 A.D.2d 429, 599 N.Y.S.2d 253, 1993 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 6270 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1993).

Pincite

Opinion

—Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Charles E. Ramos, J.), entered June 2, 1992, which granted defendants’ motion to change venue from New York County to Westchester County, unanimously reversed, on the law, and the motion denied, without costs.

A motion for a change of venue made pursuant to CPLR 510 (3) must be supported by a statement identifying the nonparty witnesses expected to be called at trial, the nature of their testimony, and the manner in which they would be inconvenienced by having to testify in the county originally designated for trial (Clark v New Rochelle Hosp. Med. Ctr., 170 AD2d 271; Frey v Fun Tyme Ski Shop, 163 AD2d 11, 12). On their motion to change venue in this action, defendants failed to identify by name any potential nonparty witnesses. As defendants failed to meet their burden, their motion should have been denied. Concur—Rosenberger, J. P., Ellerin, Asch and Rubin, JJ.

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

—Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Charles E. Ramos, J.), entered June 2, 1992, which granted defendants’ motion to change venue from New York County to Westchester County, unanimously reversed, on the law, and the motion denied, without costs.

A motion for a change of venue made pursuant to CPLR 510 (3) must be supported by a statement identifying the nonparty witnesses expected to be called at trial, the nature of their testimony, and the manner in which they would be inconvenienced by having to testify in the county originally designated for trial (Clark v New Rochelle Hosp. Med. Ctr., 170 AD2d 271; Frey v Fun Tyme Ski Shop, 163 AD2d 11, 12). On their motion to change venue in this action, defendants failed to identify by name any potential nonparty witnesses. As defendants failed to meet their burden, their motion should have been denied. Concur—Rosenberger, J. P., Ellerin, Asch and Rubin, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

194 A.D.2d 429, 599 N.Y.S.2d 253, 1993 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 6270, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/molod-v-amundsen-nyappdiv-1993.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack