From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Lubitz v. Mehlman

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, First Department
Oct 9, 1990
166 A.D.2d 212 (N.Y. App. Div. 1990)

Opinion

October 9, 1990

Appeal from the Supreme Court, New York County (Kristin Booth Glen, J.).


CPLR 510 (2) provides that the court, upon motion, may change the place of trial of an action where "there is reason to believe that an impartial trial cannot be had in the proper county". It is well settled that the moving party must make a factual showing sufficient to support such a determination (Kenford Co. v. County of Erie, 38 A.D.2d 781), and further, that the judicial discretion of the court will not be disturbed in the absence of a showing that such discretion has been abused (Stavredes v. United Skates, 87 A.D.2d 502).

The IAS court did not abuse its discretion in determining that the appearance of Louis Grossman, formerly an acting Justice of the Supreme Court, New York County, as executor of the estate of his late brother, Harry Grossman, the temporary receiver in the underlying action, did not mandate a change of venue. The IAS court clearly stated the reasons for its denial of the motion.

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


Summaries of

Lubitz v. Mehlman

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, First Department
Oct 9, 1990
166 A.D.2d 212 (N.Y. App. Div. 1990)
Case details for

Lubitz v. Mehlman

Case Details

Full title:LEWIS LUBITZ et al., Plaintiffs, v. GEORGE MEHLMAN, Respondent; MORRIS…

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

Date published: Oct 9, 1990

Citations

166 A.D.2d 212 (N.Y. App. Div. 1990)

Citing Cases

Welch Foods, Inc. v. Wilson

The court also did not abuse its discretion in denying plaintiff's motion for recusal ( see, People v.…

Cohen v. Sacchi

Looking, then, at what the appellate courts have done on motions for a change of venue pursuant to CPLR…