Saks v. Guignard

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Saks v. Guignard

79 A.D.2d 632, 433 N.Y.S.2d 622, 1980 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 13984

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

DecidedDecember 8, 1980

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 79 A.D.2d 632 (Saks v. Guignard) 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

Saks v. Guignard, 79 A.D.2d 632, 433 N.Y.S.2d 622, 1980 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 13984 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1980).

Pincite

Opinion

In a wrongful death action, defendants appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County, dated January 7, 1980, which denied their motion to renew their application for a change of venue from Kings County to Lewis County. Order affirmed, with $50 costs and disbursements. It was not an abuse of discretion to deny defendants’ motion to renew their application for a change of venue in light of their inability to offer an acceptable excuse for their failure to introduce adequate supporting papers in the first instance. Furthermore, were we to reach the merits of the application, we would conclude that there was no abuse of discretion in retaining the action .in Kings County. Damiani, J. P., Titone, Lazer and Cohalan, JJ., concur.

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

In a wrongful death action, defendants appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County, dated January 7, 1980, which denied their motion to renew their application for a change of venue from Kings County to Lewis County. Order affirmed, with $50 costs and disbursements. It was not an abuse of discretion to deny defendants’ motion to renew their application for a change of venue in light of their inability to offer an acceptable excuse for their failure to introduce adequate supporting papers in the first instance. Furthermore, were we to reach the merits of the application, we would conclude that there was no abuse of discretion in retaining the action .in Kings County. Damiani, J. P., Titone, Lazer and Cohalan, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

79 A.D.2d 632, 433 N.Y.S.2d 622, 1980 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 13984, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/saks-v-guignard-nyappdiv-1980.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack