Woloch v. Olthof Funeral Home, Inc.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Woloch v. Olthof Funeral Home, Inc.

174 A.D.2d 967, 571 N.Y.S.2d 654, 1991 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 9465

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

DecidedJune 27, 1991

StatusPublished

This text of 174 A.D.2d 967 (Woloch v. Olthof Funeral Home, 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

Woloch v. Olthof Funeral Home, Inc., 174 A.D.2d 967, 571 N.Y.S.2d 654, 1991 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 9465 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1991).

Pincite

Opinion

Appeal from an order of the Supreme Court (Rose, J.), entered January 4, 1991 in Tioga County, which, inter alia, denied defendants’ motion for a change of venue.

In rejecting defendants’ contention that their motion for a change of venue from Tioga County to Broome County should have been granted, we note initially that defendants have failed to support their claim that an impartial trial cannot be had in Tioga County (see, Krupka v County of Westchester, 160 AD2d 681). Furthermore, Tioga County is the place of residence of plaintiffs, it is the county in which the claim arose and the convenience of the witnesses will be served by a trial there (see, Risoli v Long Is. Light. Co., 138 AD2d 316). Under the circumstances, we cannot say that Supreme Court improvidently exercised its discretion in denying defendants’ motion (see, Filler v Cornell Univ., 147 AD2d 610). We have considered defendants’ remaining contentions and have found them to be lacking in merit.

Mikoll, J. P., Yesawich Jr., Mercure, Crew III and Harvey, JJ., concur. Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.

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

Appeal from an order of the Supreme Court (Rose, J.), entered January 4, 1991 in Tioga County, which, inter alia, denied defendants’ motion for a change of venue.

In rejecting defendants’ contention that their motion for a change of venue from Tioga County to Broome County should have been granted, we note initially that defendants have failed to support their claim that an impartial trial cannot be had in Tioga County (see, Krupka v County of Westchester, 160 AD2d 681). Furthermore, Tioga County is the place of residence of plaintiffs, it is the county in which the claim arose and the convenience of the witnesses will be served by a trial there (see, Risoli v Long Is. Light. Co., 138 AD2d 316). Under the circumstances, we cannot say that Supreme Court improvidently exercised its discretion in denying defendants’ motion (see, Filler v Cornell Univ., 147 AD2d 610). We have considered defendants’ remaining contentions and have found them to be lacking in merit.

Mikoll, J. P., Yesawich Jr., Mercure, Crew III and Harvey, JJ., concur. Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

174 A.D.2d 967, 571 N.Y.S.2d 654, 1991 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 9465, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/woloch-v-olthof-funeral-home-inc-nyappdiv-1991.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack