Public Service Mutual Insurance v. ITT Hartford Group, Inc.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Public Service Mutual Insurance v. ITT Hartford Group, Inc.

249 A.D.2d 78, 671 N.Y.S.2d 236, 1998 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3847

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

DecidedApril 9, 1998

StatusPublished

This text of 249 A.D.2d 78 (Public Service Mutual Insurance v. ITT Hartford Group, 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

Public Service Mutual Insurance v. ITT Hartford Group, Inc., 249 A.D.2d 78, 671 N.Y.S.2d 236, 1998 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3847 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1998).

Pincite

Opinion

—Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Ira Gammerman, J.), entered on or about April 7, 1997, which, inter alia, granted defendants-respondents’ motion for a change of venue from New York County to Erie County, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

Although plaintiff is correct that defendants, having failed to timely demand a change of venue as of right upon the ground that venue was improperly laid in New York County, must establish more than the action’s initially improper venue to support a discretionary change thereof (see, Pittman v Maher, 202 AD2d 172, 175-176), we conclude that there was a sufficient basis for the discretionary grant of defendants’ motion and agree with the IAS Court that the ends of justice (see, CPLR 510 [3]) will be promoted by transferring the action to Erie County. In this regard, we note most particularly that the underlying personal injury actions and the third-party actions to which this declaratory judgment action relates are pending in Erie County. The change of venue ordered by the IAS Court was clearly warranted in the interests of judicial economy and consistency (see, Cosmos Forms v Furst, 172 AD2d 403). We note as well that the convenience of the Erie County public of[79]*79ficers who will likely be called as witnesses in the present action additionally weighs in favor of the IAS Court’s decision to remove this action to Erie County (see, Losicco v Gardner’s Vil., 97 AD2d 535). Finally, plaintiff has failed to establish that it would be prejudiced by the change. Concur — Rosenberger, J. P., Nardelli, Wallach, Rubin and Mazzarelli, JJ.

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

—Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Ira Gammerman, J.), entered on or about April 7, 1997, which, inter alia, granted defendants-respondents’ motion for a change of venue from New York County to Erie County, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

Although plaintiff is correct that defendants, having failed to timely demand a change of venue as of right upon the ground that venue was improperly laid in New York County, must establish more than the action’s initially improper venue to support a discretionary change thereof (see, Pittman v Maher, 202 AD2d 172, 175-176), we conclude that there was a sufficient basis for the discretionary grant of defendants’ motion and agree with the IAS Court that the ends of justice (see, CPLR 510 [3]) will be promoted by transferring the action to Erie County. In this regard, we note most particularly that the underlying personal injury actions and the third-party actions to which this declaratory judgment action relates are pending in Erie County. The change of venue ordered by the IAS Court was clearly warranted in the interests of judicial economy and consistency (see, Cosmos Forms v Furst, 172 AD2d 403). We note as well that the convenience of the Erie County public of[79]*79ficers who will likely be called as witnesses in the present action additionally weighs in favor of the IAS Court’s decision to remove this action to Erie County (see, Losicco v Gardner’s Vil., 97 AD2d 535). Finally, plaintiff has failed to establish that it would be prejudiced by the change. Concur — Rosenberger, J. P., Nardelli, Wallach, Rubin and Mazzarelli, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

249 A.D.2d 78, 671 N.Y.S.2d 236, 1998 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3847, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/public-service-mutual-insurance-v-itt-hartford-group-inc-nyappdiv-1998.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack