From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Groos v. New York Telephone Company

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, First Department
Jun 15, 1995
216 A.D.2d 103 (N.Y. App. Div. 1995)

Opinion

June 15, 1995

Appeal from the Supreme Court, New York County (Carol Huff, J.).


The IAS Court properly exercised its discretion in changing venue to Westchester County, where the cause of action arose, the majority of material witnesses work or reside, the police records are located, and plaintiff received most of his medical treatment ( Toro v. Gracin, 148 A.D.2d 364). Nor was the motion untimely ( supra; compare, Lalka v. Massafra, 167 A.D.2d 265, 266).

Concur — Sullivan, J.P., Ellerin, Asch, Nardelli and Williams, JJ.


Summaries of

Groos v. New York Telephone Company

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, First Department
Jun 15, 1995
216 A.D.2d 103 (N.Y. App. Div. 1995)
Case details for

Groos v. New York Telephone Company

Case Details

Full title:PETER GROOS, Appellant, v. NEW YORK TELEPHONE COMPANY et al., Respondents

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

Date published: Jun 15, 1995

Citations

216 A.D.2d 103 (N.Y. App. Div. 1995)
628 N.Y.S.2d 104

Citing Cases

Dlugaski v. Port Auth. of N.Y. & N.J.

And by placing venue in a county that would inconvenience such witnesses would not promote the “fair and…

DLUGASKI v. PORT AUTH. OF NY N.J.

" The court in Austin v. DaimlerChrysler Corp., 294 AD2d 182, changed venue "to Suffolk County, where the…