From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Kroupa v. Facilities Development Corp.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Jan 8, 1990
157 A.D.2d 650 (N.Y. App. Div. 1990)

Opinion

January 8, 1990

Appeal from the Supreme Court, Dutchess County (Jiudice, J.).


Ordered that the order is reversed insofar as appealed from, with costs payable by the plaintiffs, the cross motion is granted, and, the Clerk of Dutchess County shall forthwith deliver to the Clerk of Albany County all papers filed in the action and certified copies of all minutes and entries, which shall be filed, entered or recorded, as the case requires, in the office of the Clerk of Albany County (see, CPLR 511 [d]).

Laws of 1968 (ch 359, as amended) (McKinney's Uncons Laws of NY § 4412 [1]) provides, in pertinent part, that the venue for an action brought against the defendant Facilities Development Corporation is the County of Albany. While in the absence of compelling circumstances, this statutory direction should be followed (see, Seaboard Sur. Co. v. Facilities Dev. Corp., 100 A.D.2d 787, 788), the court is not foreclosed from taking into account "the discretionary grounds for change or retention of venue set forth in CPLR 510 (subd 3)" (Messinger v. Festa, 94 A.D.2d 792). However, the plaintiffs herein failed to establish that "the convenience of material witnesses and the ends of justice [would] be promoted by" the retention of the action in Dutchess County (CPLR 510). Specifically, the plaintiffs did not set forth the names of any eyewitnesses, their addresses or the materiality of their testimony, and merely set forth the names and business addresses of certain prospective physician witnesses, without disclosing the substance of their testimony in sufficient detail to enable the court to determine whether such evidence would be material and necessary (see, Alexandre v Pepsi-Cola Bottling Co., 150 A.D.2d 742; Greene v. Hillcrest Gen. Hosp., 130 A.D.2d 621; Mayer v Fleischner, 92 A.D.2d 463; Hojohn v. Hamilton, 78 A.D.2d 570). Consequently, the Supreme Court should have granted the appellant's cross motion to change the venue of this action from Dutchess County to Albany County. Thompson, J.P., Lawrence, Kunzeman and Harwood, JJ., concur.


Summaries of

Kroupa v. Facilities Development Corp.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Jan 8, 1990
157 A.D.2d 650 (N.Y. App. Div. 1990)
Case details for

Kroupa v. Facilities Development Corp.

Case Details

Full title:MARY M. KROUPA et al., Respondents, v. FACILITIES DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION…

Court:Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department

Date published: Jan 8, 1990

Citations

157 A.D.2d 650 (N.Y. App. Div. 1990)
549 N.Y.S.2d 749

Citing Cases

International Fidelity Ins. v. Perosi Bros

We are of the view that as a result of plaintiff's direct claim against FDC in the amended complaint, both…

Connor v. Cuomo

It has been held that in the absence of compelling circumstances, courts should comply with this statutory…