Proc v. Oberlander

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Proc v. Oberlander

304 A.D.2d 545, 759 N.Y.S.2d 89

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York·Decided April 7, 2003·Published

Opinion

In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, etc., the defendant appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Douglass, J.), dated September 20, 2002, which denied his motion pursuant to CPLR 510 (3) to change the venue of the action from Kings County to Rockland County.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.

In support of his motion pursuant to CPLR 510 (3) to change the venue of the action from Kings County to Rockland County based upon the convenience of material witness and the ends of justice, the defendant supplied an affidavit which failed to disclose the address of the prospective witness and failed to disclose the facts to which that witness was expected to testify at trial (see Fernandes v Lawrence, 290 AD2d 412 [2002]; Romero v Mitchelltown Apts., 281 AD2d 612 [2001]; Rich v O’Connor, 212 AD2d 767 [1995]). Accordingly, the motion was properly denied (see O’Brien v Vassar Bros. Hosp., 207 AD2d 169, 172-173 [1995]). Florio, J.P., S. Miller, Townes and Mastro, 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 defendant appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Douglass, J.), dated September 20, 2002, which denied his motion pursuant to CPLR 510 (3) to change the venue of the action from Kings County to Rockland County.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.

In support of his motion pursuant to CPLR 510 (3) to change the venue of the action from Kings County to Rockland County based upon the convenience of material witness and the ends of justice, the defendant supplied an affidavit which failed to disclose the address of the prospective witness and failed to disclose the facts to which that witness was expected to testify at trial (see Fernandes v Lawrence, 290 AD2d 412 [2002]; Romero v Mitchelltown Apts., 281 AD2d 612 [2001]; Rich v O’Connor, 212 AD2d 767 [1995]). Accordingly, the motion was properly denied (see O’Brien v Vassar Bros. Hosp., 207 AD2d 169, 172-173 [1995]). Florio, J.P., S. Miller, Townes and Mastro, JJ., concur.

Proc v. Oberlander, 304 A.D.2d 545, 759 N.Y.S.2d 89 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2003).

Pincite

304 A.D.2d 545 (Proc v. Oberlander) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related