Pantoja v. Held

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Pantoja v. Held

172 A.D.2d 599

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

DecidedApril 8, 1991

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 172 A.D.2d 599 (Pantoja v. Held) 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

Pantoja v. Held, 172 A.D.2d 599 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1991).

Pincite

Opinion

In action, inter alia, to recover damages for medical malpractice, the defendant Robert Held, M.D., appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Levine, J.), dated November 22, 1988, which denied his motion to change the venue of the action from Kings County to Suffolk County.

[600]*600Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.

Upon a motion for a change of venue pursuant to CPLR 510 (3) based upon the convenience of witnesses, the movant must establish the identity of the witnesses who allegedly will be inconvenienced, their willingness to testify, and the nature of their anticipated testimony (see, Alexandre v Pepsi-Cola Bottling Co., 150 AD2d 742, 743; Jansen v Bernhang, 149 AD2d 468, 469; Greene v Hillcrest Gen. Hosp., 130 AD2d 621). Apart from identifying two witnesses, the appellant complied with none of the other requirements, and so failed to satisfy his burden. Thompson, J. P., Kunzeman, Eiber and Rosenblatt, JJ., concur.

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

In action, inter alia, to recover damages for medical malpractice, the defendant Robert Held, M.D., appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Levine, J.), dated November 22, 1988, which denied his motion to change the venue of the action from Kings County to Suffolk County.

[600]*600Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.

Upon a motion for a change of venue pursuant to CPLR 510 (3) based upon the convenience of witnesses, the movant must establish the identity of the witnesses who allegedly will be inconvenienced, their willingness to testify, and the nature of their anticipated testimony (see, Alexandre v Pepsi-Cola Bottling Co., 150 AD2d 742, 743; Jansen v Bernhang, 149 AD2d 468, 469; Greene v Hillcrest Gen. Hosp., 130 AD2d 621). Apart from identifying two witnesses, the appellant complied with none of the other requirements, and so failed to satisfy his burden. Thompson, J. P., Kunzeman, Eiber and Rosenblatt, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

172 A.D.2d 599, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/pantoja-v-held-nyappdiv-1991.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack