AMICUS AI
Citation Codes
Equivalent Citations
citation codes
Judges
Are you a practicing lawyer?
Enhance your digital presence and reach by creating a Casemine profile.
Upload pleading to use the new AI search
Cites
Cited by
Citation Codes
Equivalent Citations
citation codes
Judges

GLORIA CUMBERBATCH, etc., et al., respondents, v. GATEHOUSE MOTEL AND RESTAURANT, et al., appellants (and a third-party action).

ORDERED that the order is affirmed, with costs.

The Supreme Court providently exercised its discretion in denying the motion to change the venue of this action to Steuben County. The convenience of the individual defendants and their son is excluded from consideration in determining the motion ( see, O'Brien v. Vassar Bros. Hosp., 207 A.D.2d 169, 173; Schapiro Reich v. Fuchsberg, 172 A.D.2d 1080; Lundgren v. Lovejoy, Wasson, Lundgren Ashton, 82 A.D.2d 912). With respect to the remaining nonparty witnesses, the defendants failed to either disclose, inter alia, the nature and materiality of their anticipated testimony or establish that they would be inconvenienced in the event that a change of venue was not granted ( see, Weisemann v. Davison, 162 A.D.2d 448).

S. MILLER, J.P., THOMPSON, KRAUSMAN, FLORIO, and SCHMIDT, JJ., concur.

Use AI to get other relevant cases.

Comments

CUMBERBATCH v. GATEHOUSE MOTEL AND RESTAURANT
(Oct 12, 1999)