Vilches v. Guadagno

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Vilches v. Guadagno

125 A.D.3d 451, 999 N.Y.S.2d 742

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

DecidedFebruary 5, 2015

Docket14166N 153368/13

StatusPublished

This text of 125 A.D.3d 451 (Vilches v. Guadagno) 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

Vilches v. Guadagno, 125 A.D.3d 451, 999 N.Y.S.2d 742 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2015).

Pincite

Opinion

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Cynthia S. Kern, J.), entered May 6, 2014, which granted defendant’s motion to change venue from New York County to Albany County, unanimously reversed, on the law, without costs, and the motion denied, without prejudice to renewal after plaintiffs compliance with defendant’s discovery demands.

Defendant failed to contact purported material witnesses to determine if they were willing to testify, the substance of their testimony, or the manner in which they will be inconvenienced if they must testify in New York County. Defendant’s entire motion is based solely on his counsel’s conclusory affirmation.

*452 Thus, defendant has failed to fully establish entitlement to a change of venue pursuant to CPLR 510 (3) (see Gissen v Boy Scouts of Am,., 26 AD3d 289, 290-291 [1st Dept 2006]; Hernandez v Rodriguez, 5 AD3d 269, 269-270 [1st Dept 2004]). Defendant’s assertion that his insufficient showing resulted from plaintiffs failure to provide defendant with HIPAA and school authorizations permitting him to contact these witnesses is not supported by any documentation, and defendant has not explained why he did not seek to compel such discovery prior to making the motion. Concur — Acosta, J.P., Renwick, Feinman, Clark and Kapnick, JJ. [Prior Case History: 2014 NY Slip Op 31184CU).]

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

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Cynthia S. Kern, J.), entered May 6, 2014, which granted defendant’s motion to change venue from New York County to Albany County, unanimously reversed, on the law, without costs, and the motion denied, without prejudice to renewal after plaintiffs compliance with defendant’s discovery demands.

Defendant failed to contact purported material witnesses to determine if they were willing to testify, the substance of their testimony, or the manner in which they will be inconvenienced if they must testify in New York County. Defendant’s entire motion is based solely on his counsel’s conclusory affirmation.

*452 Thus, defendant has failed to fully establish entitlement to a change of venue pursuant to CPLR 510 (3) (see Gissen v Boy Scouts of Am,., 26 AD3d 289, 290-291 [1st Dept 2006]; Hernandez v Rodriguez, 5 AD3d 269, 269-270 [1st Dept 2004]). Defendant’s assertion that his insufficient showing resulted from plaintiffs failure to provide defendant with HIPAA and school authorizations permitting him to contact these witnesses is not supported by any documentation, and defendant has not explained why he did not seek to compel such discovery prior to making the motion. Concur — Acosta, J.P., Renwick, Feinman, Clark and Kapnick, JJ. [Prior Case History: 2014 NY Slip Op 31184CU).]

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

125 A.D.3d 451, 999 N.Y.S.2d 742, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/vilches-v-guadagno-nyappdiv-2015.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack