From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Brink v. Home Insurance Co.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Feb 1, 1896
2 App. Div. 122 (N.Y. App. Div. 1896)

Opinion

February Term, 1896.

Dickinson W. Richards and John E. Roeser, for the appellant.

Eugene L. Bushe, for the respondent.


Order affirmed, with ten dollars costs and disbursements, for the reasons assigned by the judge at Special Term.

All concurred.

The opinion of the judge at Special Term was as follows:


It is the rule not to change the venue for the convenience of witnesses from any of the adjacent counties to New York county.

The county seat of Westchester county is convenient to New York city. This case is not so exceptional as to cause a departure from the rule. The long distances in the country, which necessitate changes of venue, do not exist hereabouts. It cannot be said to be any grave inconvenience to go a distance which takes only an hour or less.

The strong tone of the brief submitted is quite unnecessary. It stands on the alleged right of the defendant, whereas it is not a matter of right. The alleged injustice is imaginary. Motion denied.


Summaries of

Brink v. Home Insurance Co.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Feb 1, 1896
2 App. Div. 122 (N.Y. App. Div. 1896)
Case details for

Brink v. Home Insurance Co.

Case Details

Full title:CARRIE ARCHER BRINK, Respondent, v . THE HOME INSURANCE COMPANY of the…

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

Date published: Feb 1, 1896

Citations

2 App. Div. 122 (N.Y. App. Div. 1896)
37 N.Y.S. 628

Citing Cases

Quinn v. Brooklyn Heights R.R. Co.

" The principle was early adopted by this court in Brink v. Home Insurance Co. ( 2 App. Div. 122). In that…

Laroque v. Conhaim

In Tuthill v. Long Island R.R. Co., 75 Hun, 556, a motion to change the place of trial from Orange county to…