Neumire v. Kraft Foods, Inc.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Neumire v. Kraft Foods, Inc.

233 A.D.2d 227, 650 N.Y.S.2d 8, 1996 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 12005

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

DecidedNovember 21, 1996

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 233 A.D.2d 227 (Neumire v. Kraft Foods, Inc.) 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

Neumire v. Kraft Foods, Inc., 233 A.D.2d 227, 650 N.Y.S.2d 8, 1996 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 12005 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1996).

Pincite

Opinion

—Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Paula Omansky, J.), entered September 20, 1995, which granted defendant’s motion to change venue to Steuben County, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

Defendant’s showing in support of a change of venue was more than sufficient to require plaintiffs "to come forward with countervailing conveniences justifying retention in a county other than where the cause of action arose” (Stonestreet v General Motors Corp., 201 AD2d 350). Plaintiffs’ production of affidavits from two witnesses stating that they would be willing to travel some 300 miles to New York for trial was hardly enough to tip the balance of convenience in plaintiffs’ favor in a transitory action that lacks any connection to New York County other than that county’s designation as defendants’ principal place of business. Concur—Sullivan, J. P., Rosenberger, Kupferman, Williams and Andrias, JJ.

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

—Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Paula Omansky, J.), entered September 20, 1995, which granted defendant’s motion to change venue to Steuben County, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

Defendant’s showing in support of a change of venue was more than sufficient to require plaintiffs "to come forward with countervailing conveniences justifying retention in a county other than where the cause of action arose” (Stonestreet v General Motors Corp., 201 AD2d 350). Plaintiffs’ production of affidavits from two witnesses stating that they would be willing to travel some 300 miles to New York for trial was hardly enough to tip the balance of convenience in plaintiffs’ favor in a transitory action that lacks any connection to New York County other than that county’s designation as defendants’ principal place of business. Concur—Sullivan, J. P., Rosenberger, Kupferman, Williams and Andrias, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

233 A.D.2d 227, 650 N.Y.S.2d 8, 1996 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 12005, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/neumire-v-kraft-foods-inc-nyappdiv-1996.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack