Roth v. Meyer

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Roth v. Meyer

248 A.D.2d 1001, 670 N.Y.S.2d 149, 1998 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3077

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

DecidedMarch 13, 1998

StatusPublished

Cited by3 cases

This text of 248 A.D.2d 1001 (Roth v. Meyer) 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

Roth v. Meyer, 248 A.D.2d 1001, 670 N.Y.S.2d 149, 1998 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3077 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1998).

Pincite

Opinion

—Order unanimously reversed on the law without costs and motion denied. Memorandum: In support of his motion for a discretionary change of venue, defendant failed to set forth the complete addresses of prospective witnesses and their occupations and to describe the testimony he expected each of those witnesses to provide (see, Zinker v Zinker, 185 AD2d 698; see also, Abbadonza v Brown, 186 AD2d 1011). Thus, it was an improvident exercise of discretion for Supreme Court to grant the motion (see, O’Brien v Vassar Bros. Hosp., 207 AD2d 169, 171-172; see also, Pillittere v Ted & Ann Tours, 244 AD2d 1006). (Appeal from Order of Supreme Court, Steuben County, Scudder, J. — Venue.)

Present — Denman, P. J., Hayes, Balio, Boehm and Fallon, JJ.

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

—Order unanimously reversed on the law without costs and motion denied. Memorandum: In support of his motion for a discretionary change of venue, defendant failed to set forth the complete addresses of prospective witnesses and their occupations and to describe the testimony he expected each of those witnesses to provide (see, Zinker v Zinker, 185 AD2d 698; see also, Abbadonza v Brown, 186 AD2d 1011). Thus, it was an improvident exercise of discretion for Supreme Court to grant the motion (see, O’Brien v Vassar Bros. Hosp., 207 AD2d 169, 171-172; see also, Pillittere v Ted & Ann Tours, 244 AD2d 1006). (Appeal from Order of Supreme Court, Steuben County, Scudder, J. — Venue.)

Present — Denman, P. J., Hayes, Balio, Boehm and Fallon, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

248 A.D.2d 1001, 670 N.Y.S.2d 149, 1998 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3077, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/roth-v-meyer-nyappdiv-1998.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack