Ossowski v. American Telephone & Telegraph

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Ossowski v. American Telephone & Telegraph

237 A.D.2d 340, 655 N.Y.S.2d 436, 1997 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 2359

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

DecidedMarch 10, 1997

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 237 A.D.2d 340 (Ossowski v. American Telephone & Telegraph) 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

Ossowski v. American Telephone & Telegraph, 237 A.D.2d 340, 655 N.Y.S.2d 436, 1997 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 2359 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1997).

Pincite

Opinion

In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, etc., the plaintiffs appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Golden, J.), dated July 15, 1996, which granted the defendant’s motion pursuant to CPLR 510 (3) to transfer venue of the action from Kings County to Westchester County.

Ordered that the order is reversed, on the law, with costs, and the defendant’s motion to transfer venue of the action to Westchester County is denied.

The Supreme Court improvidently exercised its discretion in granting the defendant’s motion pursuant to CPLR 510 (3) to change venue. Where, as here, the plaintiffs have properly designated venue based on their residence (see, CPLR 503 [a]), a defendant is entitled to a discretionary change of venue only upon "a detailed evidentiary showing that the convenience of nonparty witnesses would in fact be served by the granting of such relief’ (O’Brien v Vassar Bros. Hosp., 207 AD2d 169, 170). Here, however, the defendant has failed to sustain its burden of showing how its proposed witnesses, who reside in New Jersey, would actually be inconvenienced by retaining venue in Kings County rather than transferring the action to Westchester County. Rosenblatt, J. P., Copertino, Pizzuto, Krausman and Florio, 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, etc., the plaintiffs appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Golden, J.), dated July 15, 1996, which granted the defendant’s motion pursuant to CPLR 510 (3) to transfer venue of the action from Kings County to Westchester County.

Ordered that the order is reversed, on the law, with costs, and the defendant’s motion to transfer venue of the action to Westchester County is denied.

The Supreme Court improvidently exercised its discretion in granting the defendant’s motion pursuant to CPLR 510 (3) to change venue. Where, as here, the plaintiffs have properly designated venue based on their residence (see, CPLR 503 [a]), a defendant is entitled to a discretionary change of venue only upon "a detailed evidentiary showing that the convenience of nonparty witnesses would in fact be served by the granting of such relief’ (O’Brien v Vassar Bros. Hosp., 207 AD2d 169, 170). Here, however, the defendant has failed to sustain its burden of showing how its proposed witnesses, who reside in New Jersey, would actually be inconvenienced by retaining venue in Kings County rather than transferring the action to Westchester County. Rosenblatt, J. P., Copertino, Pizzuto, Krausman and Florio, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

237 A.D.2d 340, 655 N.Y.S.2d 436, 1997 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 2359, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/ossowski-v-american-telephone-telegraph-nyappdiv-1997.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack