From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Mencke v. Goldberg

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Mar 1, 1924
208 App. Div. 820 (N.Y. App. Div. 1924)

Opinion

March, 1924.


The motion to change the place of trial from Queens county to Suffolk county should have been granted. The alleged accident occurred in Suffolk county, and it is not contradicted that the defendant and all the witnesses to the accident reside there. The action is transitory in character, and the rule is that other things being equal the action will be tried in the county where the cause of action arose. ( Van Alstine v. Burt, 151 App. Div. 81; Fluckiger v. Haber, 144 id. 65; Upjohn v. First Methodist Episcopal Church Soc., 156 id. 147.) The order is, therefore, reversed on the law and the facts, with ten dollars costs and disbursements, and the motion granted, with ten dollars costs. Jaycox, Manning, Kelby, Young and Kapper, JJ., concur.


Summaries of

Mencke v. Goldberg

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Mar 1, 1924
208 App. Div. 820 (N.Y. App. Div. 1924)
Case details for

Mencke v. Goldberg

Case Details

Full title:GEORGE MENCKE, Respondent, v. MAX GOLDBERG, Appellant

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

Date published: Mar 1, 1924

Citations

208 App. Div. 820 (N.Y. App. Div. 1924)

Citing Cases

Slavin v. Whispell

The general rule is that a transitory action, such as this, other things being equal, should be tried in the…

Rice v. Village of Peekskill

In such circumstances, venue should be changed to the county where the cause of action arose, and which…