From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Bartrop v. Sobel Realty Co., Inc.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Jun 1, 1925
214 App. Div. 799 (N.Y. App. Div. 1925)

Opinion

June, 1925.


Order changing place of trial from Richmond county to New York county reversed on the law, with ten dollars costs and disbursements, and motion denied, with ten dollars costs. If the application be deemed to be predicated upon the fact that a change of venue will promote the convenience of witnesses, the moving affidavit is entirely insufficient, because the names of the witnesses proposed to be called by defendants, and a statement of the substance of the testimony to be given by such witnesses, and the materiality thereof, are not shown. ( Lyman v. Gramercy Club, 28 App. Div. 30; Jacina v. Lemmi, 155 id. 397.) On the other hand, if the motion be predicated upon the fact that plaintiff's assignors reside in the county of New York, the motion must also be denied, because the assignee concededly lives in Richmond county; and the assignee is a party to the action within the meaning of section 182 of the Civil Practice Act. Kelly, P.J., Rich, Jaycox, Kelby and Kapper, JJ., concur.


Summaries of

Bartrop v. Sobel Realty Co., Inc.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Jun 1, 1925
214 App. Div. 799 (N.Y. App. Div. 1925)
Case details for

Bartrop v. Sobel Realty Co., Inc.

Case Details

Full title:FREDERICK F. BARTROP, Appellant, v. SOBEL REALTY CO., INC., and Another…

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

Date published: Jun 1, 1925

Citations

214 App. Div. 799 (N.Y. App. Div. 1925)

Citing Cases

Wamsley v. Ashford Plumbing Company, Inc.

The moving papers present no case for changing the venue for the convenience of witnesses; the names or…

Stricker v. Waldorf

October, 1925. Order granting defendant's motion for a change of venue reversed on the law, with ten dollars…