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
16-Ounce “Portion Cap Rule” for Sugary Drinks Invalid
DEFENDANT’S STEPMOTHER COULD NOT CONSENT TO THE SEARCH OF DEFENDANT’S BACKPACK, WHICH WAS IN THE STEPMOTHER’S APARTMENT, BECAUSE THE POLICE KNEW THE BACKPACK BELONGED TO DEFENDANT; AN APPELLATE COURT DOES NOT HAVE JURISDICTION TO AFFIRM A LOWER COURT RULING ON A GROUND NOT RULED ON BY THE LOWER COURT (FIRST DEPT).
THE CONTRACT OF SALE INCLUDED THE PURCHASER’S AGREEMENT TO FORFEIT THE DOWN PAYMENT IF SHE DID NOT CLOSE ON THE AGREED DATE; THEREFORE THE SELLERS WERE ENTITLED TO THE DOWN PAYMENT; UNJUST ENRICHMENT CANNOT BE CLAIMED IN THE FACE OF A WRITTEN AGREEMENT (FIRST DEPT).
Question of Fact Whether Elevator Company Had Constructive Notice of “Misleveling Condition”/Question of Fact About Applicability of Res Ipsa Loquitur Doctrine
LADDER MOVED FOR NO APPARENT REASON, PLAINTIFF ENTITLED TO SUMMARY JUDGMENT ON HIS LABOR LAW 240 (1) ACTION (FIRST DEPT).
EVEN THOUGH PLAINTIFF GAVE CONFLICTING DESCRIPTIONS OF WHERE SHE SLIPPED AND FELL, ONE OF THOSE DESCRIPTIONS WAS SUFFICIENT TO RAISE A QUESTION OF FACT THAT THE FALL OCCURRED IN AN AREA WHICH HAD BEEN EXCAVATED (FIRST DEPT).
ALTHOUGH THE POLICE RECEIVED AN ANONYMOUS TIP THAT A MAN MATCHING DEFENDANT’S DESCRIPTION HAD A GUN, THE POLICE SAW NO SIGN OF CRIMINAL ACTIVITY WHEN THEY APPROACHED AND QUESTIONED THE DEFENDANT, THE SUBSEQUENT SEIZURE AND FRISK OF THE DEFENDANT WAS ILLEGAL (FIRST DEPT).
LOSS OF RESTAURANT CUSTOMERS DUE TO COVID DOES NOT CONSTITUTE “DIRECT PHYSICAL LOSS OR DAMAGE” WITHIN THE MEANING OF THE BUSINESS-INTERRUPTION INSURANCE POLICY (FIRST DEPT).

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 © 2025 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...