From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Farra v. Hesseltine

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Third Department
Nov 25, 1987
134 A.D.2d 788 (N.Y. App. Div. 1987)

Opinion

November 25, 1987

Appeal from the Supreme Court, Saratoga County (Brown, J.).


This is a personal injury action arising out of a collision between an automobile operated by defendant Sherry Hesseltine (owned by defendant Upstate Auto Service) and a bicycle ridden by the infant, John Farra. The accident occurred on July 15, 1984 in the Village of Lake Placid in Essex County. The record discloses that the action was commenced in Saratoga County on September 25, 1984. Defendants' answer was interposed on November 6, 1984. Defendants moved for a change of venue to Essex County pursuant to CPLR 510 (3) on December 11, 1986, some two years after issue was joined; the moving papers offer no explanation for the delay. Citing Grzesiak v. Abraham Straus Stores ( 72 A.D.2d 729), Supreme Court denied defendants' motion on the ground that there was an inordinate unexplained delay in moving to change venue.

In addition to the extensive delay in bringing this motion, defendants presented an insufficient showing to mandate a change in venue for the convenience of witnesses under CPLR 510 (3). In his moving affidavit, defense counsel names one apparently independent eyewitness, whom he states that plaintiff or he will call at trial. Defense counsel also names a passenger in defendants' car and a police officer who investigated at the scene, both of whom he will call. The other witnesses he names are expert witnesses, parties or only possible witnesses (i.e., four ambulance service persons). The materiality of the witnesses' testimony is not clearly set forth. Convenience to the individual witnesses, as measured by the driving time to either possible place of trial, is not substantially fostered by changing venue; the differences in driving times is not of great significance in this day and age. On this record, we cannot say that Supreme Court abused its discretion in denying the motion. The order of Supreme Court should therefore be affirmed.

Ordered affirmed, with costs. Mahoney, P.J., Main, Mikoll, Yesawich, Jr., and Harvey, JJ., concur.


Summaries of

Farra v. Hesseltine

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Third Department
Nov 25, 1987
134 A.D.2d 788 (N.Y. App. Div. 1987)
Case details for

Farra v. Hesseltine

Case Details

Full title:RONALD FARRA, Individually and as Father of JOHN FARRA, an Infant…

Court:Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Third Department

Date published: Nov 25, 1987

Citations

134 A.D.2d 788 (N.Y. App. Div. 1987)

Citing Cases

Walton v. Mercy Coll.

The Court held that movant's showing: does not withstand close scrutiny" (Wecht v Glen Distribs. Co., 112…

Schneeweiss v. Pelkey

The defendant contends, in substance, that venue should be placed in Dutchess County, where the accident…