Romero v. Mitchelltown Apts., Inc.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Romero v. Mitchelltown Apts., Inc.

281 A.D.2d 612, 722 N.Y.S.2d 183, 2001 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3097

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York·Decided March 26, 2001·Published·Cited by 5 cases

Opinion

—In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, etc., the defendant Mitchelltown Apts., Inc., appeals from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Posner, J.), dated June 6, 2000, as denied its motion to transfer venue of this action from Queens County to Nassau County pursuant to CPLR 510 (3).

Ordered that the order is affirmed insofar as appealed from, with costs.

The Supreme Court providently exercised its discretion in denying the appellant’s motion to change the venue of the action from Queens County to Nassau County based upon “the convenience of material witnesses and the ends of justice” (CPLR 510 [3]). The appellant failed to disclose the nature and materiality of the anticipated testimony of the proposed nonparty-witnesses (see, O’Brien v Vassar Bros. Hosp., 207 AD2d 169, 172) and demonstrate that these witnesses would be inconvenienced if the venue were not changed (see, Cruz v City of New York, 251 AD2d 364; Mallory v Long Is. R. R., 245 AD2d 493; Murphy v Long Is. R. R., 239 AD2d 472). Bracken, P. J., S. Miller, McGinity and Schmidt, 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 Mitchelltown Apts., Inc., appeals from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Posner, J.), dated June 6, 2000, as denied its motion to transfer venue of this action from Queens County to Nassau County pursuant to CPLR 510 (3).

Ordered that the order is affirmed insofar as appealed from, with costs.

The Supreme Court providently exercised its discretion in denying the appellant’s motion to change the venue of the action from Queens County to Nassau County based upon “the convenience of material witnesses and the ends of justice” (CPLR 510 [3]). The appellant failed to disclose the nature and materiality of the anticipated testimony of the proposed nonparty-witnesses (see, O’Brien v Vassar Bros. Hosp., 207 AD2d 169, 172) and demonstrate that these witnesses would be inconvenienced if the venue were not changed (see, Cruz v City of New York, 251 AD2d 364; Mallory v Long Is. R. R., 245 AD2d 493; Murphy v Long Is. R. R., 239 AD2d 472). Bracken, P. J., S. Miller, McGinity and Schmidt, JJ., concur.

Romero v. Mitchelltown Apts., Inc., 281 A.D.2d 612, 722 N.Y.S.2d 183, 2001 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3097 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2001).

Pincite

281 A.D.2d 612 (Romero v. Mitchelltown Apts., Inc.) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related