From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

T.D.M. v. Pipala

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, First Department
Jan 18, 1996
223 A.D.2d 419 (N.Y. App. Div. 1996)

Opinion

January 18, 1996

Appeal from the Supreme Court, New York County (Emily Jane Goodman, J.).


The IAS Court properly exercised its discretion in denying the motion pursuant to CPLR 510 (3) for a change of venue of the action from New York County to Orange County based upon defendants' claim of convenience of witnesses and the ends of justice. Upon a motion made pursuant to CPLR 510 (3), the movant bears the burden of demonstrating that the convenience of material witnesses would be better served by the change of venue ( Cardona v. Aggressive Heating, 180 A.D.2d 572). The record reveals that defendants failed to show, inter alia, the identity of the proposed witnesses (other than adverse witnesses) or the manner in which the proposed witnesses will be inconvenienced by a trial in New York County, where the action was properly commenced ( supra).

Concur — Murphy, P.J., Sullivan, Kupferman and Ross, JJ.


Summaries of

T.D.M. v. Pipala

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, First Department
Jan 18, 1996
223 A.D.2d 419 (N.Y. App. Div. 1996)
Case details for

T.D.M. v. Pipala

Case Details

Full title:T.D.M., Respondent, v. EDWARD A. PIPALA et al., Appellants

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

Date published: Jan 18, 1996

Citations

223 A.D.2d 419 (N.Y. App. Div. 1996)
637 N.Y.S.2d 8

Citing Cases

Peralta-Mera v. Streep

The movant bears the burden of demonstrating that "the convenience of material witnesses would be better…

People ex rel. Schneiderman v. Jamail

(Rodriguez–Lebron v. Sunoco, Inc., 18 A.D.3d 275, 795 N.Y.S.2d 26 [1st Dept.2005] ; Fernandes v. FN Projects,…