From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Bisbano v. Schoenbach

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, First Department
Oct 2, 1990
166 A.D.2d 153 (N.Y. App. Div. 1990)

Opinion

October 2, 1990

Appeal from the Supreme Court, Bronx County (Anita Florio, J.).


Although the alleged malpractice occurred in Westchester County, where the plaintiff resides, the defendant's motion to change venue was properly denied. Defendant resides in Bronx County, therefore venue in that county is proper (CPLR 503 [a]). A transitory action should, as a general rule, be tried where the cause of action arises. However, where plaintiff's choice of venue is otherwise proper, the failure of defendant to provide a list of prospective witnesses, and a statement as to the nature of their testimony and how they would be inconvenienced, is fatal to a motion (Firoozan v. Key Food Supermarket, 151 A.D.2d 334).

Concur — Murphy, P.J., Sullivan, Carro and Milonas, JJ.


Summaries of

Bisbano v. Schoenbach

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, First Department
Oct 2, 1990
166 A.D.2d 153 (N.Y. App. Div. 1990)
Case details for

Bisbano v. Schoenbach

Case Details

Full title:LISA BISBANO, Respondent, v. STANLEY SCHOENBACH, Appellant

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

Date published: Oct 2, 1990

Citations

166 A.D.2d 153 (N.Y. App. Div. 1990)
562 N.Y.S.2d 392