From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Sanders v. Prescott

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Dec 1, 1931
234 App. Div. 899 (N.Y. App. Div. 1931)

Opinion

December, 1931.


Order granting motion to change the venue from Kings county to Monroe county reversed on the law and the facts, with ten dollars costs and disbursements, and motion denied, with ten dollars costs. The defendant did not establish that the plaintiff was not a resident of Kings county. ( Bischoff v. Bischoff, 88 App. Div. 126. ) The showing herein did not authorize a change of venue on the ground of convenience of witnesses, because the alleged witnesses reside in Erie county and not in Monroe county, and their convenience may not be considered on a motion to change the venue to Monroe county. ( Johnson v. Millard, 200 App. Div. 734; Schoonmaker v. Hilliard, 55 id. 140.) Even if their convenience might otherwise be considered, the moving affidavit with respect to them does not comply with the rule requiring the giving of the names and addresses of the proposed witnesses, the substance of the testimony to be given by them and a showing of its materiality. ( Jacina v. Lemmi, 155 App. Div. 397, 399.) Lazansky, P.J., Hagarty, Carswell, Scudder and Davis, JJ., concur.


Summaries of

Sanders v. Prescott

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Dec 1, 1931
234 App. Div. 899 (N.Y. App. Div. 1931)
Case details for

Sanders v. Prescott

Case Details

Full title:CHARLES C. SANDERS, Appellant, v. ALBERT J. PRESCOTT, Doing Business under…

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

Date published: Dec 1, 1931

Citations

234 App. Div. 899 (N.Y. App. Div. 1931)

Citing Cases

Tallers&sCooper, Inc. v. Rand

In deciding such a question, however, the court will not usually consider the convenience of employees,…

Taller Cooper, Inc. v. Rand

In furtherance of its claim that the convenience of material witnesses requires that the case be tried in…