Simonetti v. Cavalry Paratransit, Inc.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Simonetti v. Cavalry Paratransit, Inc.

279 A.D.2d 518, 718 N.Y.S.2d 878, 2001 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 391

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

DecidedJanuary 16, 2001

StatusPublished

This text of 279 A.D.2d 518 (Simonetti v. Cavalry Paratransit, Inc.) 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

Simonetti v. Cavalry Paratransit, Inc., 279 A.D.2d 518, 718 N.Y.S.2d 878, 2001 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 391 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2001).

Pincite

Opinion

In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, etc., the defendants appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Hall, J.), dated May 26, 2000, which denied their motion to change the venue of the action from Kings County to Richmond County.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.

The plaintiffs’ choice of venue, based on the residence of one of the defendants, was not improper (see, CPLR 503 [a]). Therefore, the defendants had no ground upon which to base a demand for a change of venue (see, CPLR 511 [a]). In addition, the defendants failed to make the requisite showing for a discretionary change of venue based on the inconvenience of the witnesses (see, O’Brien v Vassar Bros. Hosp., 207 AD2d 169). Accordingly, the defendants’ motion for a change of venue was properly denied. Ritter, J. P., Friedmann, H. Miller and Feuerstein, 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 defendants appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Hall, J.), dated May 26, 2000, which denied their motion to change the venue of the action from Kings County to Richmond County.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.

The plaintiffs’ choice of venue, based on the residence of one of the defendants, was not improper (see, CPLR 503 [a]). Therefore, the defendants had no ground upon which to base a demand for a change of venue (see, CPLR 511 [a]). In addition, the defendants failed to make the requisite showing for a discretionary change of venue based on the inconvenience of the witnesses (see, O’Brien v Vassar Bros. Hosp., 207 AD2d 169). Accordingly, the defendants’ motion for a change of venue was properly denied. Ritter, J. P., Friedmann, H. Miller and Feuerstein, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

279 A.D.2d 518, 718 N.Y.S.2d 878, 2001 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 391, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/simonetti-v-cavalry-paratransit-inc-nyappdiv-2001.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack