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
Attempted Kidnapping Charge Supported by Sufficient Evidence/Defendant Tried to Convince the 10-Year-Old Victim to Take His Keys and Go to His Apartment
PETITIONER SOUGHT A TEMPORARY LICENSE PURSUANT TO RPAPL 881 TO ENTER RESPONDENT’S ADJOINING PROPERTY TO INSTALL PROTECTIONS PRIOR TO DEMOLITION WORK ON PETITIONER’S BUILDINGS; RESPONDENT WAS ENTITLED TO FULL INDEMNIFICATION FOR ANY DAMAGE (AS OPPOSED TO INDEMNIFICATION “TO THE EXTENT COVERED BY INSURANCE”) AND TO REASONABLE EXPERT’S AND ATTORNEY’S FEES (SECOND DEPT).
EVICTION WAS TOO SEVERE A PENALTY FOR PETITIONER’S MOMENTARY LOSS OF CONTROL DURING WHICH SHE STRUCK A NYC HOUSING AUTHORITY EMPLOYEE (FIRST DEPT).
NYC LANDMARKS PRESERVATION COMMISSION’S DECISION THAT IT DID NOT HAVE THE AUTHORITY TO REGULATE THE MECHANISM OF AND ACCESS TO A LANDMARK NINETEENTH CENTURY CLOCKTOWER WHICH HAD BEEN PURCHASED BY A PRIVATE PARTY WAS BASED UPON AN ERROR OF LAW AND WAS IRRATIONAL (FIRST DEPT).
Plaintiff Cannot Proceed With Case Taking a Position Different from That Taken in a Prior Action
QUESTION OF FACT WHETHER PLAINTIFF WAS TOLD TO PAINT ONLY WHERE HE COULD REACH WITHOUT THE LADDER IN THIS LADDER-FALL CASE (FIRST DEPT).
Discrimination (Re Licensing) Based on Criminal Conviction Disallowed
ALTHOUGH BREACH OF CONTRACT CAUSES OF ACTION WERE PRECLUDED BY THE STATUTE OF FRAUDS, RELATED PROMISSORY ESTOPPEL AND UNJUST ENRICHMENT CAUSES OF ACTION SHOULD HAVE SURVIVED MOTION TO DISMISS.

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...