From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Goldman v. Isgood Stottville Realty Corp.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, First Department
Oct 24, 1961
14 A.D.2d 759 (N.Y. App. Div. 1961)

Opinion

October 24, 1961


Order entered on January 16, 1961, denying motion for a change of venue from Bronx County to Columbia County on the ground that the convenience of witnesses will be promoted, unanimously affirmed, on the facts, on the law, and in the exercise of discretion, with $20 costs and disbursements to plaintiff-respondent. While it is the general rule "that a transitory action, such as this, other things being equal, should be tried in the county in which the cause of action arose" ( Slavin v. Whispell, 5 A.D.2d 296, 297), we are impressed by the grave physical condition of plaintiff and the sworn statement of plaintiff's doctor that to cause plaintiff to travel to Hudson, New York, would seriously impair his health. Furthermore, no explanation is furnished as to why the four other active defendants did not join or take a position in this motion, and the "rule is that a motion to change the place of a trial of an action for the convenience of witnesses must be made by all the defendants who defend, unless some reason is shown why all did not join" ( Lyman v. Gramercy Club, 28 App. Div. 30, 34).

Concur — Botein, P.J., Breitel, Rabin, Valente and McNally, JJ.


Summaries of

Goldman v. Isgood Stottville Realty Corp.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, First Department
Oct 24, 1961
14 A.D.2d 759 (N.Y. App. Div. 1961)
Case details for

Goldman v. Isgood Stottville Realty Corp.

Case Details

Full title:CHARLES I. GOLDMAN, Respondent, v. ISGOOD STOTTVILLE REALTY CORP.…

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

Date published: Oct 24, 1961

Citations

14 A.D.2d 759 (N.Y. App. Div. 1961)

Citing Cases

Karassik v. Bereskin

Latham, Cohalan and Hawkins, JJ., concur; Gulotta, P.J., and Hopkins, J., dissent and vote to reverse the…

Ferrigno v. General Motors Corporation

We do not agree. We note that the defendants other than GM did not join in the motion for a change of venue…