From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Serraino v. Cauthen

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, First Department
Dec 9, 1993
199 A.D.2d 63 (N.Y. App. Div. 1993)

Opinion

December 9, 1993

Appeal from the Supreme Court, New York County (Charles Ramos, J.).


The determination of whether or not to transfer the venue of an action lies within the discretion of the motion court (Levenstein v Parks, 163 A.D.2d 367, 368). In this case, involving a vehicular accident in Westchester County in which the drivers of both cars involved reside in Westchester County, defendant named at least six witnesses who assertedly reside in Westchester County. The names and addresses of three of these witnesses were supplied by plaintiff in response to defendant's demand for discovery and inspection. There is nothing in the record to demonstrate that this case has any nexus whatsoever with New York County, other than the principal place of business of the corporate defendant. In these circumstances, the change of venue was not an abuse of discretion.

Concur — Murphy, P.J., Rosenberger, Ross and Nardelli, JJ.


Summaries of

Serraino v. Cauthen

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, First Department
Dec 9, 1993
199 A.D.2d 63 (N.Y. App. Div. 1993)
Case details for

Serraino v. Cauthen

Case Details

Full title:PRUDENCE B. SERRAINO, as Executrix of SALVATORE SERRAINO, Deceased…

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

Date published: Dec 9, 1993

Citations

199 A.D.2d 63 (N.Y. App. Div. 1993)
604 N.Y.S.2d 949

Citing Cases

Goldberg v. Elrac, Inc.

Here, the court is on notice that the court calendar in Dutchess County, from filing of the note of issue to…