From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Roth v. Meyer

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Fourth Department
Mar 13, 1998
248 A.D.2d 1001 (N.Y. App. Div. 1998)

Opinion

March 13, 1998

Appeal from the Supreme Court, Steuben County, Scudder, J. — Venue.)

Present — Denman, P. J., Hayes, Balio, Boehm and Fallon, JJ.


Order unanimously reversed on the law without costs and motion denied. Memorandum: In support of his motion for a discretionary change of venue, defendant failed to set forth the complete addresses of prospective witnesses and their occupations and to describe the testimony he expected each of those witnesses to provide (see, Zinker v. Zinker, 185 A.D.2d 698; see also, Abbadonza v. Brown, 186 A.D.2d 1011). Thus, it was an improvident exercise of discretion for Supreme Court to grant the motion (see, O'Brien v. Vassar Bros. Hosp., 207 A.D.2d 169, 171-172; see also, Pillittere v. Ted Ann Tours, 244 A.D.2d 1006).


Summaries of

Roth v. Meyer

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Fourth Department
Mar 13, 1998
248 A.D.2d 1001 (N.Y. App. Div. 1998)
Case details for

Roth v. Meyer

Case Details

Full title:BRAD ROTH, Individually and as Parent and Natural Guardian of BRIAN E…

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

Date published: Mar 13, 1998

Citations

248 A.D.2d 1001 (N.Y. App. Div. 1998)
670 N.Y.S.2d 149

Citing Cases

Rowland v. Slayton

" ‘The party moving for a change of venue pursuant to CPLR 510(3) has the burden of demonstrating that the…

Davis v. Russell

In support of the motion and cross motion, defendants submitted the affidavits of four prospective witnesses…