Walsh v. J.W. Mays, Inc.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Walsh v. J.W. Mays, Inc.

168 A.D.2d 444

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

DecidedDecember 3, 1990

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 168 A.D.2d 444 (Walsh v. J.W. Mays, 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

Walsh v. J.W. Mays, Inc., 168 A.D.2d 444 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1990).

Pincite

Opinion

In a negligence action to recover damages for wrongful death, the defendant J.W. Mays, Inc., appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Shaw, J.), dated January 30, 1989, which denied its motion for a change of venue.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.

A motion to change venue for the convenience of the witnesses must be supported by a statement setting forth the names of the witnesses involved, that they have agreed to testify and what their testimony might be. Absent such a showing, the motion should be denied (see, Alexandre v Pepsi-Cola Bottling Co., 150 AD2d 742; Ferrigno v General Motors Corp., 134 AD2d 479; Greene v Hillcrest Gen. Hosp., 130 AD2d 621). The appellant has not satisfied this burden and, accordingly, denial of the motion was proper. We further note that it has failed to explain its inordinately long, six-year delay in making the motion for this change of venue and find that, under the circumstances, the motion was not made "within a reasonable time,” as required by CPLR 511 (a). Mangano, P. J., Kunzeman, Kooper, Sullivan and Ritter, JJ., concur.

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

In a negligence action to recover damages for wrongful death, the defendant J.W. Mays, Inc., appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Shaw, J.), dated January 30, 1989, which denied its motion for a change of venue.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.

A motion to change venue for the convenience of the witnesses must be supported by a statement setting forth the names of the witnesses involved, that they have agreed to testify and what their testimony might be. Absent such a showing, the motion should be denied (see, Alexandre v Pepsi-Cola Bottling Co., 150 AD2d 742; Ferrigno v General Motors Corp., 134 AD2d 479; Greene v Hillcrest Gen. Hosp., 130 AD2d 621). The appellant has not satisfied this burden and, accordingly, denial of the motion was proper. We further note that it has failed to explain its inordinately long, six-year delay in making the motion for this change of venue and find that, under the circumstances, the motion was not made "within a reasonable time,” as required by CPLR 511 (a). Mangano, P. J., Kunzeman, Kooper, Sullivan and Ritter, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

168 A.D.2d 444, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/walsh-v-jw-mays-inc-nyappdiv-1990.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack