From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Sunick v. Wadsworth

Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Fourth Department, New York.
Sep 27, 2013
109 A.D.3d 1199 (N.Y. App. Div. 2013)

Opinion

2013-09-27

Albert R. SUNICK, Plaintiff–Respondent, v. John M. WADSWORTH, Defendant–Appellant.

Appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Erie County (Frederick J. Marshall, J.), entered December 17, 2012. The order denied the motion of defendant to change the place of the trial from Erie County to Chautauqua County. Burgio, Kita & Curvin, Buffalo (James P. Burgio of Counsel), for Defendant–Appellant. Maxwell Murphy, LLC, Buffalo (Alan D. Voos of Counsel), for Plaintiff–Respondent.


Appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Erie County (Frederick J. Marshall, J.), entered December 17, 2012. The order denied the motion of defendant to change the place of the trial from Erie County to Chautauqua County.
Burgio, Kita & Curvin, Buffalo (James P. Burgio of Counsel), for Defendant–Appellant. Maxwell Murphy, LLC, Buffalo (Alan D. Voos of Counsel), for Plaintiff–Respondent.
MEMORANDUM:

The parties were involved in an automobile/motorcycle accident in Chautauqua County, and plaintiff thereafter commenced this negligence action in Erie County. Defendant sought a change of venue from Erie County to Chautauqua County “upon the grounds that the convenience of material witnesses and the ends of justice will be promoted by the change.” Supreme Court denied the motion, and we affirm. The standard of review for a change of venue is not whether the court abused its discretion but, rather, it is “ whether such discretion was exercised in a provident manner” ( O'Brien v. Vassar Bros. Hosp., 207 A.D.2d 169, 172, 622 N.Y.S.2d 284). Under the circumstances presented here, we cannot conclude*914that the court improvidently exercised its discretion in denying the motion to change venue. In our view, defendant failed to meet his burden of establishing that nonparty witnesses would in fact be inconvenienced in absence of a change of venue ( see Huttenlocker v. White, 298 A.D.2d 960, 960, 748 N.Y.S.2d 115;O'Brien, 207 A.D.2d at 173, 622 N.Y.S.2d 284).

It is hereby ORDERED that the order so appealed from is unanimously affirmed without costs.

SCUDDER, P.J., FAHEY, SCONIERS, and VALENTINO, JJ., concur.


Summaries of

Sunick v. Wadsworth

Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Fourth Department, New York.
Sep 27, 2013
109 A.D.3d 1199 (N.Y. App. Div. 2013)
Case details for

Sunick v. Wadsworth

Case Details

Full title:Albert R. SUNICK, Plaintiff–Respondent, v. John M. WADSWORTH…

Court:Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Fourth Department, New York.

Date published: Sep 27, 2013

Citations

109 A.D.3d 1199 (N.Y. App. Div. 2013)
2013 N.Y. Slip Op. 6207
971 N.Y.S.2d 913