Morris v. Halik

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Morris v. Halik

172 A.D.2d 502, 568 N.Y.S.2d 333, 1991 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4378

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

DecidedApril 1, 1991

StatusPublished

Cited by6 cases

This text of 172 A.D.2d 502 (Morris v. Halik) 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

Morris v. Halik, 172 A.D.2d 502, 568 N.Y.S.2d 333, 1991 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4378 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1991).

Pincite

Opinion

In an action to recover damages for personal injuries arising out of an automobile accident, the plaintiff appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County (I. Aronin, J.), dated November 1, 1989, which granted the defendant’s motion pursuant to CPLR 510 (3) for a change of venue of the action to Monroe County.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.

Motions to transfer venue under CPLR 510 (3) are addressed to the sound discretion of the trial court and absent an improvident exercise of discretion, the trial court’s order will not be disturbed on appeal (see, Feldman v North Shore Univ. [503]*503Hosp., 157 AD2d 831; Filler v Cornell Univ., 147 AD2d 610). Under the circumstances of this case, we cannot conclude that the court improvidently exercised its discretion in transferring the venue of this action from Kings County to Monroe County. Bracken, J. P., Kooper, Lawrence, Balletta and O’Brien, JJ., concur.

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

In an action to recover damages for personal injuries arising out of an automobile accident, the plaintiff appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County (I. Aronin, J.), dated November 1, 1989, which granted the defendant’s motion pursuant to CPLR 510 (3) for a change of venue of the action to Monroe County.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.

Motions to transfer venue under CPLR 510 (3) are addressed to the sound discretion of the trial court and absent an improvident exercise of discretion, the trial court’s order will not be disturbed on appeal (see, Feldman v North Shore Univ. [503]*503Hosp., 157 AD2d 831; Filler v Cornell Univ., 147 AD2d 610). Under the circumstances of this case, we cannot conclude that the court improvidently exercised its discretion in transferring the venue of this action from Kings County to Monroe County. Bracken, J. P., Kooper, Lawrence, Balletta and O’Brien, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

172 A.D.2d 502, 568 N.Y.S.2d 333, 1991 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4378, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/morris-v-halik-nyappdiv-1991.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack