Vered v. Wittenberg

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Vered v. Wittenberg

138 A.D.3d 646, 28 N.Y.S.3d 871

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

DecidedApril 28, 2016

Docket999N 158844/14

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 138 A.D.3d 646 (Vered v. Wittenberg) 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

Vered v. Wittenberg, 138 A.D.3d 646, 28 N.Y.S.3d 871 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2016).

Pincite

Opinion

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Arlene P. Bluth, J.), entered May 5, 2015, which, in an action arising out of a motor vehicle accident in Suffolk County, denied defendant’s motion to change venue from New York County to Suffolk County, unanimously reversed, on the law and the facts, without costs, and the motion granted.

Supreme Court improvidently exercised its discretion in *647 denying defendant’s motion to change venue pursuant to CPLR 510 (3). Defendant showed that nonparty material witnesses— including the police officer, detective, and paramedics who responded to the scene of the accident in Suffolk County — were willing to testify, but would be inconvenienced by having to travel to New York County (see Henry v Central Hudson Gas & Elec. Corp., 57 AD3d 452 [1st Dept 2008]; Hoogland v Transport Expressway, Inc., 24 AD3d 191 [1st Dept 2005]; Kennedy v C.F. Galleria at White Plains, 2 AD3d 222, 223 [1st Dept 2003]). Moreover, most of the medical records and witnesses are located in Suffolk County (see Gentry v Finnigan, 110 AD3d 568, 569 [1st Dept 2013]). In response to defendant’s showing, plaintiffs have not shown that New York County where they reside, is preferable to Suffolk County where they own a home (see Cardona v Aggressive Heating, 180 AD2d 572, 573 [1st Dept 1992]).

Concur — Tom, J.P., Mazzarelli, Friedman, Richter and Kahn, JJ.

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

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Arlene P. Bluth, J.), entered May 5, 2015, which, in an action arising out of a motor vehicle accident in Suffolk County, denied defendant’s motion to change venue from New York County to Suffolk County, unanimously reversed, on the law and the facts, without costs, and the motion granted.

Supreme Court improvidently exercised its discretion in *647 denying defendant’s motion to change venue pursuant to CPLR 510 (3). Defendant showed that nonparty material witnesses— including the police officer, detective, and paramedics who responded to the scene of the accident in Suffolk County — were willing to testify, but would be inconvenienced by having to travel to New York County (see Henry v Central Hudson Gas & Elec. Corp., 57 AD3d 452 [1st Dept 2008]; Hoogland v Transport Expressway, Inc., 24 AD3d 191 [1st Dept 2005]; Kennedy v C.F. Galleria at White Plains, 2 AD3d 222, 223 [1st Dept 2003]). Moreover, most of the medical records and witnesses are located in Suffolk County (see Gentry v Finnigan, 110 AD3d 568, 569 [1st Dept 2013]). In response to defendant’s showing, plaintiffs have not shown that New York County where they reside, is preferable to Suffolk County where they own a home (see Cardona v Aggressive Heating, 180 AD2d 572, 573 [1st Dept 1992]).

Concur — Tom, J.P., Mazzarelli, Friedman, Richter and Kahn, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

138 A.D.3d 646, 28 N.Y.S.3d 871, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/vered-v-wittenberg-nyappdiv-2016.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack