Summary
In Gennaro v. Grossfeld, 186 AD2d 718 (2nd Dept. 1992), the court granted a discretionary venue change despite a three year delay in seeking the same after concluding that the action had no nexus to the originally chosen venue.
Summary of this case from LA CARA MIA BAR LOUNGE v. GREAT LOCATIONSOpinion
October 19, 1992
Appeal from the Supreme Court, Kings County (Hurowitz, J.).
Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.
While CPLR 511 (a) requires that a motion to change venue based on the convenience of the material witnesses be made within "a reasonable time", it is well settled that it may be made any time before the trial and is addressed to the sound discretion of the trial court (see, Morale v La Grange Inn, 160 A.D.2d 783; Toro v Gracin, 148 A.D.2d 364; Korman v City of New York, 89 A.D.2d 888).
Under the circumstances of this case, we cannot conclude that the Supreme Court improvidently exercised its discretion in transferring the venue of this action from Kings County to Ontario County. The three-year delay in bringing the motion is outweighed by the factors favoring the transfer (see, Wendal v Memorial Hosp., 182 A.D.2d 617). Ontario County is where the injury occurred and is where the medical records and hospital personnel who treated the plaintiff are located. We note that the only demonstrated nexus to Kings County is that the plaintiff, who has since moved, resided there at the time she commenced the action (see, Creed v United Hosp., 158 A.D.2d 654). Mangano, P.J., Sullivan, O'Brien, Ritter and Pizzuto, JJ., concur.