From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Franklin v. DaimlerChrysler Corp.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Jun 2, 2003
306 A.D.2d 243 (N.Y. App. Div. 2003)

Opinion

2002-06151

Submitted May 7, 2003.

June 2, 2003.

In an action, inter alia, to recover damages for breach of written and implied warranties, the defendants appeal, as limited by their brief, from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Rockland County (Bergerman, J.), dated May 30, 2002, as denied their motion pursuant to CPLR 510(3) to change venue of the action from Rockland County to Onondaga County.

Rose Law Firm, PLLC, Albany, N.Y. (G. Christopher Gleason of counsel), for appellants.

Sadis Goldberg, LLC, New York, N.Y. (Douglas R. Hirsch and Mitchell Taras of counsel), for respondent.

Before: MYRIAM J. ALTMAN, J.P., GABRIEL M. KRAUSMAN, GLORIA GOLDSTEIN, HOWARD MILLER, STEPHEN G. CRANE, JJ.


DECISION ORDER

ORDERED that the order is affirmed insofar as appealed from, with costs.

The defendants failed to demonstrate that any nonparty witnesses would be inconvenienced should a change of venue be denied. Consequently, the Supreme Court providently exercised its discretion in denying their motion (see Curry v. Tysens Park Apts., 289 A.D.2d 191; Cilmi v. Greenberg, Trager, Toplitz Herbst, 273 A.D.2d 266; O'Brien v. Vassar Bros. Hosp., 207 A.D.2d 169, 172-173).

ALTMAN, J.P., KRAUSMAN, GOLDSTEIN, H. MILLER and CRANE, JJ., concur.


Summaries of

Franklin v. DaimlerChrysler Corp.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Jun 2, 2003
306 A.D.2d 243 (N.Y. App. Div. 2003)
Case details for

Franklin v. DaimlerChrysler Corp.

Case Details

Full title:AIMEE L. FRANKLIN, respondent, v. DAIMLERCHRYSLER CORPORATION, ET AL.…

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

Date published: Jun 2, 2003

Citations

306 A.D.2d 243 (N.Y. App. Div. 2003)
760 N.Y.S.2d 332