Alverio v. Delta International Mach. Corp.

5 Citing cases

  1. People

    164 A.D.2d 492 (N.Y. App. Div. 1990)   Cited 3 times

    The disposition of such motion is within the sound discretion of the court (CPLR 510; Cola-Rugg Enters. v Consolidated Edison Co., 109 A.D.2d 726) and will not be disturbed on appeal absent a showing that such discretion has been abused (Stavredes v United Skates, 87 A.D.2d 502). Here, respondents failed to sustain the burden imposed upon them to justify a change by specifying the names and addresses of each material witness, detailing the testimony each would give, and demonstrating why such testimony was indispensable (see, McLaughlin, Practice Commentaries, McKinney's Cons Laws of NY, Book 7B, CPLR C510:3, at 74-75; Alverio v Delta Intl. Mach. Corp., 139 A.D.2d 419). Respondents' vague descriptions of material witnesses and what they might testify to were facially insufficient.

  2. Scott v. Ecker Manufacturing Corp.

    161 A.D.2d 347 (N.Y. App. Div. 1990)   Cited 9 times

    Appeal from the Supreme Court, Bronx County (Harold Tompkins, J.). It was an improper exercise of the court's discretion to grant defendants' motions for a change of venue where the motions were made, at the court's suggestion, some 31 months after the commencement of this motor vehicle negligence action, following several pretrial conferences in Bronx Supreme Court, after the apparent completion of discovery, and after the case had been placed on the Trial Calendar on January 12, 1988 (see, Alverio v Delta Intl. Mach. Corp., 139 A.D.2d 419). Additionally, where the driver of the vehicle which struck plaintiff as she stood on the sidewalk admitted that he had run a red light before colliding with a second vehicle and mounting the curb, there was an insufficient showing of either the substance or the materiality of the proposed testimony of the witnesses whose names appear in the police accident report. Nor is there any showing that those witnesses, who all reside in New Rochelle, would be any more inconvenienced by having to travel to the Bronx County Courthouse rather than the Westchester County Courthouse in White Plains.

  3. Ginsberg v. Robinson Helicopter Co., Inc.

    160 A.D.2d 237 (N.Y. App. Div. 1990)

    Accordingly, the requirements for change of venue are satisfied. (Cf., Alverio v. Delta Intl. Mach. Corp., 139 A.D.2d 419.)

  4. Weiss v. Saks Fifth Avenue

    157 A.D.2d 475 (N.Y. App. Div. 1990)   Cited 14 times
    In Weiss, the Appellate Division, First Department, reversed the transfer of an action from New York County to Westchester County on the grounds that while the accident had taken place in Westchester County, and the defendant asserted it was a resident of Westchester County (the location of its "principal office"), New York County was designated as the defendant's "principal place of business" on its certificate of assumed name, and "principal office" and "principal place of business" are interchangeable (Weiss, 157 A.D.2d at 476).

    To support a motion on grounds of convenience of witnesses, the moving party must list the names and addresses of all material witnesses expected to be called and set forth the essence of their expected testimony. (Alverio v. Delta Intl. Mach. Corp., 139 A.D.2d 419; Stavredes v. United Skates, 87 A.D.2d 502.) For obvious reasons, no such showing was made here.

  5. Kaplansky v. Assoc. Ymywha's of Greater N.Y

    154 A.D.2d 576 (N.Y. App. Div. 1989)   Cited 3 times

    In support of its motion to change venue, the defendant submitted its certificate of incorporation verifying the latter fact. Consequently, the plaintiff should have commenced this action in either Nassau County or New York County (see, Alverio v Delta Intl. Mach. Corp., 139 A.D.2d 419; West v West, 111 A.D.2d 632; Burch v Phillips, 88 A.D.2d 896; Bryan v Hagemann, 31 A.D.2d 905, 906), and the defendant's motion to change the venue to New York County should have been granted. Brown, J.P., Lawrence, Kooper and Spatt, JJ., concur.