From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Erskine v. Burke Scaffolding Corp.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Mar 7, 1994
202 A.D.2d 389 (N.Y. App. Div. 1994)

Opinion

March 7, 1994

Appeal from the Supreme Court, Kings County (Golden, J.).


Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.

The defendants did not identify their witnesses who allegedly would be inconvenienced, their willingness to testify, and the nature of their anticipated testimony. Accordingly, they failed to satisfy their burden of establishing a basis for a change of venue pursuant to CPLR 510 (3) (see, Alexandre v. Pepsi-Cola Bottling Co., 150 A.D.2d 742). Sullivan, J.P., Pizzuto, Joy and Goldstein, JJ., concur.


Summaries of

Erskine v. Burke Scaffolding Corp.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Mar 7, 1994
202 A.D.2d 389 (N.Y. App. Div. 1994)
Case details for

Erskine v. Burke Scaffolding Corp.

Case Details

Full title:LEO ERSKINE et al., Respondents, v. BURKE SCAFFOLDING CORP. et al.…

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

Date published: Mar 7, 1994

Citations

202 A.D.2d 389 (N.Y. App. Div. 1994)
608 N.Y.S.2d 519

Citing Cases

O'Brien v. Vassar Bros. Hosp

Second, a party seeking a change of venue for the convenience of witnesses is also required to disclose the…

Law Offices of Wexler Burkhart Hirschberg v. Bingaman

contain the names, addresses and occupations of the prospective witnesses" ( Jurlbut v Whalen, 58 AD2d 311,…