Summary
finding inconvenience from having to travel insufficient
Summary of this case from Estate of Robbins v. LorratneOpinion
October 12, 1995
Appeal from the Supreme Court, New York County (Charles Ramos, J.).
The IAS Court properly concluded that appellants had failed to sustain their burden of showing entitlement to a discretionary change of venue pursuant to CPLR 510 (3) ( see, Rosenthal v Bologna, 211 A.D.2d 436, 437). One of the police witnesses who had appeared on the scene after the infant plaintiff's accident declined to submit an affidavit which stated that she would be willing to testify on defendants' behalf. The other, who later conducted an investigation, was a retired detective. The weight ordinarily accorded to the convenience of public officers because they should not be kept from their duties unnecessarily ( see, Chimirri v. Evergreen Am. Corp., 211 A.D.2d 743, 744) was therefore not applicable to this prospective witness. The retired detective's assertion that he would be inconvenienced by having to travel from his residence in Staten Island, which was similar to defense counsel's assertion with respect to two witnesses who would likely be flying in from their homes in Florida, was not sufficient to warrant the requested relief ( cf., Prado v Walsh-Atkinson Co., 212 A.D.2d 489; Pittman v. Maher, 202 A.D.2d 172, 177).
Concur — Rosenberger, J.P., Ellerin, Wallach and Tom, JJ.