Morrison v. Lawler

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Morrison v. Lawler

290 A.D.2d 370, 736 N.Y.S.2d 596, 2002 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 817

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

DecidedJanuary 29, 2002

StatusPublished

Cited by54 cases

This text of 290 A.D.2d 370 (Morrison v. Lawler) 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

Morrison v. Lawler, 290 A.D.2d 370, 736 N.Y.S.2d 596, 2002 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 817 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2002).

Pincite

Opinion

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Milton Tingling, J.), entered on or about August 22, 2001, which, in an action for personal injury and wrongful death arising out of a car accident, denied defendants’ motion for a change of venue to Dutchess County, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

Defendants’ claim that the State Troopers and emergency medical technicians who responded to the subject car accident on a highway in Dutchess County would be inconvenienced by having to testify in New York County is not adequately supported with a showing of the asserted inconvenience, or the nature and relevance of their anticipated testimony (see, Schoen v Chase Manhattan Automotive Fin. Corp., 274 AD2d 345; Heinemann v Grunfeld, 224 AD2d 204; Prado v Walsh-Atkinson Co., 212 AD2d 489). We have considered defendants’ other [371]*371arguments, including the asserted inconvenience of the decedent’s physician, and find them unavailing. Concur — Williams, J.P., Mazzarelli, Rosenberger, Wallach and Lerner, JJ.

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

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Milton Tingling, J.), entered on or about August 22, 2001, which, in an action for personal injury and wrongful death arising out of a car accident, denied defendants’ motion for a change of venue to Dutchess County, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

Defendants’ claim that the State Troopers and emergency medical technicians who responded to the subject car accident on a highway in Dutchess County would be inconvenienced by having to testify in New York County is not adequately supported with a showing of the asserted inconvenience, or the nature and relevance of their anticipated testimony (see, Schoen v Chase Manhattan Automotive Fin. Corp., 274 AD2d 345; Heinemann v Grunfeld, 224 AD2d 204; Prado v Walsh-Atkinson Co., 212 AD2d 489). We have considered defendants’ other [371]*371arguments, including the asserted inconvenience of the decedent’s physician, and find them unavailing. Concur — Williams, J.P., Mazzarelli, Rosenberger, Wallach and Lerner, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

290 A.D.2d 370, 736 N.Y.S.2d 596, 2002 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 817, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/morrison-v-lawler-nyappdiv-2002.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack