Tomao v. Colgate University

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Tomao v. Colgate University

143 A.D.2d 745, 533 N.Y.S.2d 453, 1988 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 10044

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

DecidedOctober 11, 1988

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 143 A.D.2d 745 (Tomao v. Colgate University) 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

Tomao v. Colgate University, 143 A.D.2d 745, 533 N.Y.S.2d 453, 1988 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 10044 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1988).

Pincite

Opinion

— In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, the plaintiff appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Nassau County (Burke, J.), dated May 8, 1987, which granted the defendant’s motion for a change of venue of the action from Nassau County to Madison County.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.

Absent a clear abuse of discretion, a determination to grant a change of venue pursuant to CPLR 510 (3) will not be disturbed on appeal (see, McDonald v Southampton Hosp., 133 AD2d 814; Resnick v Karmax Camp Corp., 112 AD2d 206, 207). In this case, excluding from consideration the parties and the defendant’s employees, there is no preponderance of witnesses residing in either Nassau or Madison County (see, Resnick v Karmax Camp Corp., supra, at 207). Inasmuch as the cause of action arose in Madison County, we cannot say that the court abused its discretion in granting the defendant’s motion (see, McDonald v Southampton Hosp., supra). Mangano, J. P., Bracken, Spatt and Harwood, 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, the plaintiff appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Nassau County (Burke, J.), dated May 8, 1987, which granted the defendant’s motion for a change of venue of the action from Nassau County to Madison County.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.

Absent a clear abuse of discretion, a determination to grant a change of venue pursuant to CPLR 510 (3) will not be disturbed on appeal (see, McDonald v Southampton Hosp., 133 AD2d 814; Resnick v Karmax Camp Corp., 112 AD2d 206, 207). In this case, excluding from consideration the parties and the defendant’s employees, there is no preponderance of witnesses residing in either Nassau or Madison County (see, Resnick v Karmax Camp Corp., supra, at 207). Inasmuch as the cause of action arose in Madison County, we cannot say that the court abused its discretion in granting the defendant’s motion (see, McDonald v Southampton Hosp., supra). Mangano, J. P., Bracken, Spatt and Harwood, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

143 A.D.2d 745, 533 N.Y.S.2d 453, 1988 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 10044, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/tomao-v-colgate-university-nyappdiv-1988.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack