From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Redelick v. Williford

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Jun 2, 1997
240 A.D.2d 388 (N.Y. App. Div. 1997)

Opinion

June 2, 1997

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


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

To change venue as a matter of right on the ground that the county designated was not proper (see, CPLR 510), a defendant is required to serve a demand for change of place of trial pursuant to CPLR 511 (a). The appellants failed to comply with this requirement. Although that branch of their motion could have been granted in the court's discretion (see, Aureliano v. Hunt-Wesson Foods, 124 A.D.2d 691), under the circumstances here, the Supreme Court did not improvidently exercise its discretion in denying that branch of the motion.

In addition, the Supreme Court did not improvidently exercise its discretion in denying that branch of the appellants' motion which was to change venue based on the convenience of material witnesses (see, CPLR 510; O'Brien v. Vassar Bros. Hosp., 207 A.D.2d 169).

Miller, J.P., Thompson, Joy and Luciano, JJ., concur.


Summaries of

Redelick v. Williford

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Jun 2, 1997
240 A.D.2d 388 (N.Y. App. Div. 1997)
Case details for

Redelick v. Williford

Case Details

Full title:MITCHELL REDELICK, Respondent, v. BARRY W. WILLIFORD et al., Appellants…

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

Date published: Jun 2, 1997

Citations

240 A.D.2d 388 (N.Y. App. Div. 1997)
658 N.Y.S.2d 1024

Citing Cases

Roman v. Long Island Lighting Company

The defendants failed to comply with this requirement. In addition, under the circumstances of this case, the…