From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Kulock v. Kiamesha Concord, Inc.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, First Department
Jun 13, 1967
28 A.D.2d 660 (N.Y. App. Div. 1967)

Opinion

June 13, 1967


Order, entered January 20, 1967, denying, on reconsideration, defendant's motion for change of venue from New York County to Sullivan County, unanimously reversed, on the law, on the facts and in the exercise of discretion, with $30 costs and disbursements to defendant-appellant, and motion granted, with $10 costs. Appeal from order entered November 22, 1966 dismissed, without costs and without disbursements. This transitory action, grounded in negligence, arises from an alleged accident occurring at the Concord Hotel in Sullivan County. Therefore, "other things being equal, [it] should be tried" in Sullivan County ( Slavin v. Whispell, 5 A.D.2d 296, 297, 298, citing cases; see, also, Goldman v. Weisman, 23 A.D.2d 634; Edwards v. Lewin, 284 App. Div. 28, 30), and it does not avail plaintiff to argue that, in any event, considering the convenience of the parties and of the medical and other witnesses in the two counties, the equities are equal or tipped only slightly in defendant's favor. Under the circumstances, the denial of the motion was an improper exercise of the discretion vested in Special Term.

Concur — Eager, J.P., Steuer, Capozzoli, Rabin and McNally, JJ.


Summaries of

Kulock v. Kiamesha Concord, Inc.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, First Department
Jun 13, 1967
28 A.D.2d 660 (N.Y. App. Div. 1967)
Case details for

Kulock v. Kiamesha Concord, Inc.

Case Details

Full title:BERTHA KULOCK et al., Respondents, v. KIAMESHA CONCORD, INC., Appellant

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

Date published: Jun 13, 1967

Citations

28 A.D.2d 660 (N.Y. App. Div. 1967)

Citing Cases

Morris v. Treadway Inn Resorts, Inc.

Thus the controlling factor appears to be that the cause of action arose in Broome County. Other things being…

Martin v. Mieth

But even should the courts of this State entertain the action it is clear that the only justification for so…