PUTNAM-CORDOVANO, ROBIN v. CSX CORPORATION

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

PUTNAM-CORDOVANO, ROBIN v. CSX CORPORATION

90 A.D.3d 1637, 935 N.Y.2d 518, 935 N.Y.S.2d 518

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

DecidedDecember 30, 2011

DocketCA 11-01355

StatusPublished

This text of 90 A.D.3d 1637 (PUTNAM-CORDOVANO, ROBIN v. CSX CORPORATION) 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

PUTNAM-CORDOVANO, ROBIN v. CSX CORPORATION, 90 A.D.3d 1637, 935 N.Y.2d 518, 935 N.Y.S.2d 518 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2011).

Pincite

Opinion

Memorandum:

CSX Corporation and CSX Transportation, Inc. (collectively, defendants) contend on appeal that Supreme Court should have granted their motion for a change of venue from Niagara County to Chautauqua County. We reject that contention. “A motion for a change of venue is addressed to the sound discretion of the court and, absent an improvident exercise of discretion, the court’s determination will not be disturbed on appeal” (County of Onondaga v Home Ins. Cos., 265 AD2d 896, 896 [1999]; see 1093 Group, LLC v Canale, 72 AD3d 1561, 1562-1563 [2010]). In addition, general allegations of inconvenience or difficulty are insufficient to justify a change of venue (see Mroz v Ace Auto Body & Towing, 307 AD2d 403 [2003]). Based on the record before us, it cannot be said that the court improvidently exercised its discretion in denying de *1638 fendants’ motion (see 1093 Group, LLC, 72 AD3d at 1562-1563; Stratton v Dueppengiesser, 281 AD2d 991 [2001]; see also CPLR 510 [3]). Present — Scudder, PJ., Centra, Fahey, Garni and Sconiers, JJ.

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

Memorandum:

CSX Corporation and CSX Transportation, Inc. (collectively, defendants) contend on appeal that Supreme Court should have granted their motion for a change of venue from Niagara County to Chautauqua County. We reject that contention. “A motion for a change of venue is addressed to the sound discretion of the court and, absent an improvident exercise of discretion, the court’s determination will not be disturbed on appeal” (County of Onondaga v Home Ins. Cos., 265 AD2d 896, 896 [1999]; see 1093 Group, LLC v Canale, 72 AD3d 1561, 1562-1563 [2010]). In addition, general allegations of inconvenience or difficulty are insufficient to justify a change of venue (see Mroz v Ace Auto Body & Towing, 307 AD2d 403 [2003]). Based on the record before us, it cannot be said that the court improvidently exercised its discretion in denying de *1638 fendants’ motion (see 1093 Group, LLC, 72 AD3d at 1562-1563; Stratton v Dueppengiesser, 281 AD2d 991 [2001]; see also CPLR 510 [3]). Present — Scudder, PJ., Centra, Fahey, Garni and Sconiers, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

90 A.D.3d 1637, 935 N.Y.2d 518, 935 N.Y.S.2d 518, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/putnam-cordovano-robin-v-csx-corporation-nyappdiv-2011.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack