You are here: / / THE STATUTORY CRITERIA FOR A MOTION TO CHANGE VENUE IN CPLR 510(3) WERE...

THE STATUTORY CRITERIA FOR A MOTION TO CHANGE VENUE IN CPLR 510(3) WERE NOT MET; THE MOTION SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined the defendants’ motion to change the venue in this insurance-coverage dispute should not have been granted because the statutory criteria in CPLR 510(3) were not met. The statute requires detailed information about the witnesses who will testify and how those witnesses would be inconvenienced if venue is not changed:

To warrant a change of venue pursuant to CPLR 510(3), “[t]he affidavit in support of such motion must contain the names, addresses and occupations of the prospective witnesses, must disclose the facts to which the proposed witnesses will testify at the trial, must show that the proposed witnesses are, in fact, willing to testify and must show how the proposed witnesses would be inconvenienced in the event that a change of venue is not granted” … . Defendants have failed to meet any part of this standard. Defendants’ general statements that nonparty witnesses involved in the renovation project will be inconvenienced by venue in New York County is inadequate to satisfy the standard … . Corner of Walnut LLC v Tompkins Ins. Agencies, Inc., 2024 NY Slip Op 01339, First Dept 3-14-24

Practice Point: CPLR 510(3) describes the required contents of a motion to change venue which includes detailed information about the witnesses who will testify and how the witnesses will be inconvenienced if venue is not changed.

 

You might also like
THE PEOPLE AGREED DEFENDANT’S ALLEGATIONS IN THE OMNIBUS MOTION WARRANTED A SUPPRESSION HEARING BUT ARGUED THE ISSUE WAS NOT PRESERVED BECAUSE THE ORDER DENYING A SUPPRESSION HEARING INCLUDED THE PHRASE “WITH LEAVE TO RENEW UPON A SHOWING OF SUFFICIENT FACTUAL ALLEGATIONS” RENDERING THE ORDER NONFINAL AND UNAPPEALABLE; THE FIRST DEPARTMENT NOTED THAT NO OTHER EVIDENCE CAME TO LIGHT WHICH COULD HAVE SUPPORTED A RENEWAL MOTION; THE ORDER WAS THEREFORE DEEMED FINAL AND APPEALABLE (FIRST DEPT).
FOR CAUSE CHALLENGE TO JUROR WHO EXPRESSED BIAS IN FAVOR OF THE CREDIBILITY OF POLICE OFFICERS SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED (FIRST DEPT).
THE PORT AUTHORITY DEMONSTRATED IT WAS NOT LIABLE FOR PLAINTIFF’S DECEDENT’S DEATH BY SUICIDE; PLAINTIFF’S DECEDENT CLIMBED OVER A FOUR-FOOT-TALL PEDESTRIAN RAILING AND JUMPED OFF THE GEORGE WASHINGTON BRIDGE (FIRST DEPT).
THE DENIAL OF DEFENDANT’S PETITION FOR A DE NOVO JURY TRIAL TO DETERMINE WHETHER HE IS MENTALLY ILL IS APPEALABLE AS OF RIGHT AND THE PETITION SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED, AN EXCEPTION TO THE MOOTNESS DOCTRINE APPLIED AND DEFENSE COUNSEL’S STATEMENTS AND THE DEFENSE EXPERT’S TESTIMONY AT THE HEARING TO THE EFFECT DEFENDANT WAS MENTALLY ILL DID NOT CONSTITUTE A WAIVER OF THE DEFENDANT’S RIGHT TO A DE NOVO TRIAL (FIRST DEPT).
BOILER MANUFACTURER LIABLE FOR FAILURE TO WARN EMPLOYEES OF THE HAZARDS OF WORKING WITH ASBESTOS; DAMAGES FOR PAST PAIN AND SUFFERING REDUCED FROM NEARLY $10 TO $4.5 MILLION.
LETTER WRITTEN BY PETITIONER UPON INVOLUNTARY ADMISSION TO A HOSPITAL SHOULD HAVE BEEN SEEN AS A DEMAND FOR AN EXPEDITED CHALLENGE TO THE CONFINEMENT UNDER THE MENTAL HYGIENE LAW (HABEAS CORPUS), ALTHOUGH THE ISSUE IS MOOT IN THIS CASE, THE ISSUE WAS HEARD ON APPEAL BECAUSE IT IS LIKELY TO RECUR (FIRST DEPT).
CONTRACT WAS AMBIGUOUS CONCERNING WHETHER PLAINTIFF BROKER WAS ENTITLED TO A COMMISSION, SUMMARY JUDGMENT IN FAVOR OF DEFENDANTS SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED (FIRST DEPT).
DEFENDANTS DEMONSTRATED THEY DID NOT HAVE CONSTRUCTIVE NOTICE OF WET CONDITION WHERE PLAINTIFF FELL, CAUSE OF ACTION BASED ON ABSENCE OF A HANDRAIL SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN DISMISSED.

Categories

Sign Up for the Mailing List to Be Notified When the Site Is Updated.

  • This field is for validation purposes and should be left unchanged.

Copyright © 2026 New York Appellate Digest, Inc.
Site by CurlyHost | Privacy Policy

PLAINTIFF, A NEW YORK RESIDENT AND A SHAREHOLDER IN DEFENDANT LONDON CORPORATION,... THE FACT THAT PLAINTIFF WAS SPECIFICALLY TARGETED FOR A HOME INVASION DID NOT...