Schrager v. Ransohoff

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Schrager v. Ransohoff

186 A.D.2d 386

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

DecidedOctober 6, 1992

StatusPublished

This text of 186 A.D.2d 386 (Schrager v. Ransohoff) 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

Schrager v. Ransohoff, 186 A.D.2d 386 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1992).

Pincite

Opinion

— Order, Supreme Court, Bronx County (Howard R. Silver, J.), entered April 6, 1992, which, insofar as appealed from, denied defendants-appellants’ motion for a change of venue from Bronx County to either Westchester or New York County, unanimously affirmed, with costs.

Defendants’ motion for a change of venue pursuant to CPLR 510 (3) was not made within a reasonable time after commencement of the action, made as it was seven years after the action was commenced, six and one-half years after the court had denied a prior motion to change venue, after discovery [387]*387and many conferences had been completed, and after the case had been placed on the trial calendar (see, Scott v Ecker Mfg. Corp., 161 AD2d 347, 348). In addition, we agree with the IAS Court that the motion was not supported by an adequate statement specifying the manner in which the prospective witnesses would be inconvenienced by having to testify in Bronx County (see, Clark v New Rochelle Hosp. Med. Ctr., 170 AD2d 271). Concur — Sullivan, J. P., Milonas, Kupferman and Rubin, JJ.

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

— Order, Supreme Court, Bronx County (Howard R. Silver, J.), entered April 6, 1992, which, insofar as appealed from, denied defendants-appellants’ motion for a change of venue from Bronx County to either Westchester or New York County, unanimously affirmed, with costs.

Defendants’ motion for a change of venue pursuant to CPLR 510 (3) was not made within a reasonable time after commencement of the action, made as it was seven years after the action was commenced, six and one-half years after the court had denied a prior motion to change venue, after discovery [387]*387and many conferences had been completed, and after the case had been placed on the trial calendar (see, Scott v Ecker Mfg. Corp., 161 AD2d 347, 348). In addition, we agree with the IAS Court that the motion was not supported by an adequate statement specifying the manner in which the prospective witnesses would be inconvenienced by having to testify in Bronx County (see, Clark v New Rochelle Hosp. Med. Ctr., 170 AD2d 271). Concur — Sullivan, J. P., Milonas, Kupferman and Rubin, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

186 A.D.2d 386, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/schrager-v-ransohoff-nyappdiv-1992.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack