Smilow v. General Motors Co.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Smilow v. General Motors Co.

168 A.D.2d 237

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

DecidedDecember 6, 1990

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 168 A.D.2d 237 (Smilow v. General Motors Co.) 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

Smilow v. General Motors Co., 168 A.D.2d 237 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1990).

Pincite

Opinion

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Burton S. Sherman, J.), entered May 1, 1990, which granted defendant’s motion pursuant to CPLR 510 (3) to transfer venue of this action from New York County to Sullivan County, unanimously affirmed, with costs.

We agree with the IAS court that based upon the fact that the automobile accident occurred in Sullivan County, the [238]*238residences of the material witnessed, and the Trial Calendars of the respective counties, this action should be tried in Sullivan County. While plaintiffs’ medical condition is a pertinent consideration on this motion, under the circumstances, there is insufficient evidence to demonstrate that it warrants trial in New York County. Moreover, defendant has adequately satisfied the requirements for a motion to change venue pursuant to CPLR 510 (3) by identifying numerous witnesses, including emergency services personnel and eyewitnesses to the accident, all of whom reside in or near Sullivan County, and by setting forth the nature of their prospective testimony. (See generally, Forte v Weiner, 165 AD2d 678.) Concur—Murphy, P. J., Ross, Ellerin and Smith, JJ.

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

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Burton S. Sherman, J.), entered May 1, 1990, which granted defendant’s motion pursuant to CPLR 510 (3) to transfer venue of this action from New York County to Sullivan County, unanimously affirmed, with costs.

We agree with the IAS court that based upon the fact that the automobile accident occurred in Sullivan County, the [238]*238residences of the material witnessed, and the Trial Calendars of the respective counties, this action should be tried in Sullivan County. While plaintiffs’ medical condition is a pertinent consideration on this motion, under the circumstances, there is insufficient evidence to demonstrate that it warrants trial in New York County. Moreover, defendant has adequately satisfied the requirements for a motion to change venue pursuant to CPLR 510 (3) by identifying numerous witnesses, including emergency services personnel and eyewitnesses to the accident, all of whom reside in or near Sullivan County, and by setting forth the nature of their prospective testimony. (See generally, Forte v Weiner, 165 AD2d 678.) Concur—Murphy, P. J., Ross, Ellerin and Smith, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

168 A.D.2d 237, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/smilow-v-general-motors-co-nyappdiv-1990.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack