You are here: / / DEFENDANTS DID NOT PRESENT SUFFICIENT EVIDENCE IN SUPPORT OF THEIR MOTION...
,

DEFENDANTS DID NOT PRESENT SUFFICIENT EVIDENCE IN SUPPORT OF THEIR MOTION TO CHANGE VENUE (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department reversing Supreme Court, determined defendants did not present sufficient evidence in support of their motion to change venue. The plaintiffs alleged the defendants, who were hired to paint newly-constructed residential property, did substandard work. Suit was brought in the county of plaintiffs’ residence and business, New York County. The defendants sought to change the venue to Suffolk County where the property is located and defendants reside:

Where venue has properly been designated by the plaintiff based on the residence of either party, a defendant seeking a change of venue under CPLR 510(3) must make a detailed evidentiary showing that the nonparty witnesses will, in fact, be inconvenienced absent such relief. The affidavit of the moving party under CPLR 510(3) must (1) contain the names, addresses, and occupations of witnesses expected to be called; (2) disclose the facts upon which such witnesses are expected to testify, in order that the court may determine whether such witnesses are material and necessary; (3) demonstrate that such witnesses are willing to testify; and (4) show that the witnesses would be inconvenienced absent a change in venue … …

… [D]efendants neglected to show with sufficient particularity the facts upon which nonparty McAulife is expected to testify. … Defendants did not submit an affidavit from McAulife, relying instead on counsel’s affirmation wherein he states that McAulife was “familiar with the work performed by defendants at 10 Two Trees Lane,” and “familiar with defendants in their business capacity.” Without further detail about when, where, and under what circumstances McAulife had occasion to become “familiar with the work,” defendants’ burden has not been met … . Defendants also fail to set forth McAulife’s name, address, and occupation, or how he would be inconvenienced absent a change in venue. The fact that the case involves work on a property located in Suffolk County does not justify an inversion of the burden of proof or relieve the moving party of its burden of establishing that the convenience of the nonparty witnesses would be served by a discretionary change of venue … . 10 Two Trees Lane LLC v Mahone, 2021 NY Slip Op 01371, First Dept 3-9-21

 

You might also like
FRAUD CAUSES OF ACTION AGAINST DEUTSCHE BANK STEMMING FROM THE COLLAPSE OF MORTGAGE-BACKED SECURITIES DISMISSED AS UNTIMELY, ACCUSATIONS AGAINST DEUTSCHE BANK WERE WELL-KNOWN MORE THAN TWO YEARS BEFORE THE SUIT WAS BROUGHT.
IN AN ACTION SEEKING TO ENFORCE A JUDGMENT AGAINST NON-DEBTORS PURSUANT TO CPLR ARTICLE 52, THE PETITIONERS ARE NOT ENTITLED TO A JURY TRIAL; THE ACTION IS EQUITABLE IN NATURE, DESPITE THE DEMAND FOR MONETARY DAMAGES (FIRST DEPT). ​
THERE IS A QUESTION OF FACT WHETHER DEFENDANTS LAUNCHED AN INSTRUMENT OF HARM BY ERECTING AN OPAQUE FENCE AROUND A CONSTRUCTION SITE WHICH BLOCKED DRIVERS’ AND PEDESTRIANS’ LINES OF SIGHT IN AN INTERSECTION; PLAINTIFF PEDESTRIAN WAS STRUCK BY A CAR WHEN HE STEPPED BEYOND THE FENCE INTO A LANE OF TRAFFIC (FIRST DEPT).
ALTHOUGH THE FREE-STANDING BRACE FRAME WAS AT THE SAME LEVEL AS PLAINTIFF AT THE TIME IT FELL OVER, PLAINTIFF WAS ENTITLED TO SUMMARY JUDGMENT ON HIS LABOR LAW 240 (1) CAUSE OF ACTION (FIRST DEPT).
MULTI-MILLION DOLLAR VERDICTS AGAINST THE OWNER PERSONALLY AND HIS COMPANIES WARRANTED, WORKER SAFETY DISREGARDED WHEN REPAIR TO CONSTRUCTION CRANE UNDERTAKEN, CRANE OPERATOR AND CO-WORKER ON THE GROUND KILLED WHEN CRANE FELL (FIRST DEPT).
ALLEGED TORTIOUS ACTS DID NOT OCCUR IN NEW YORK, OUT OF STATE DEFENDANT DID NOT HAVE SUFFICIENT CONTACT WITH NEW YORK TO MEET DUE PROCESS STANDARDS, NO PERSONAL JURISDICTION (FIRST DEPT).
ALTHOUGH THIS NON-TORT ACTION AGAINST THE NYC DISTRICT ATTORNEY DID NOT TRIGGER THE NOTICE OF CLAIM REQUIREMENT OF THE GENERAL MUNICIPAL LAW, IT DID TRIGGER THE NOTICE OF CLAIM REQUIREMENT OF THE COUNTY LAW (FIRST DEPT).
Contract with Construction Manager Did Not Give the Manager Sufficient Supervisory Control to Impose Liability Under Labor Law 200, 240 (1) or 246 (1)

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

WHETHER PLAINTIFF USED ONE OR BOTH HANDS TO MANIPULATE A HOSE WHILE STANDING... ALTHOUGH THIS NON-TORT ACTION AGAINST THE NYC DISTRICT ATTORNEY DID NOT TRIGGER...