From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Hirshkind v. Mayer

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Mar 1, 1904
91 App. Div. 416 (N.Y. App. Div. 1904)

Opinion

March, 1904.

Louis Wertheimer, for the appellant.

Jacob Bachrach, for the respondent.


The order appealed from in this case changes the place of trial of the action from the county of Westchester to the county of New York. The motion for such a change was based upon the ground that the latter county was the proper one. As the plaintiff resides in the county where the venue is laid, the motion could not properly have been granted upon the ground assigned. It is true that in the moving papers allegations are made with the design of showing that the convenience of witnesses would be subserved by the change, but it has been frequently decided in this department that a change in the place of trial will not be ordered upon that ground alone, where the change desired is from a rural county to the county of New York. ( Quinn v. Brooklyn Heights R.R. Co., 88 App. Div. 57.)

The order should be reversed, with ten dollars costs and disbursements, and motion denied, with costs.

All concurred.

Order reversed, with ten dollars costs and disbursements, and motion denied, with costs.


Summaries of

Hirshkind v. Mayer

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Mar 1, 1904
91 App. Div. 416 (N.Y. App. Div. 1904)
Case details for

Hirshkind v. Mayer

Case Details

Full title:JEROME HIRSHKIND, Appellant, v . JOSEPH MAYER, Respondent

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

Date published: Mar 1, 1904

Citations

91 App. Div. 416 (N.Y. App. Div. 1904)
86 N.Y.S. 836

Citing Cases

Laroque v. Conhaim

In Tuthill v. Long Island R.R. Co., 75 Hun, 556, a motion to change the place of trial from Orange county to…

Dairymen's League Co-operative Assn., Inc., v. Brundo

The motion must be denied for another reason. For more than a century it has been the rule not to change the…