From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Tomao v. Colgate University

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Oct 11, 1988
143 A.D.2d 745 (N.Y. App. Div. 1988)

Opinion

October 11, 1988

Appeal from the Supreme Court, Nassau County (Burke, J.).


Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.

Absent a clear abuse of discretion, a determination to grant a change of venue pursuant to CPLR 510 (3) will not be disturbed on appeal (see, McDonald v Southampton Hosp., 133 A.D.2d 814; Resnick v Karmax Camp Corp., 112 A.D.2d 206, 207). In this case, excluding from consideration the parties and the defendant's employees, there is no preponderance of witnesses residing in either Nassau or Madison County (see, Resnick v Karmax Camp Corp., supra, at 207). Inasmuch as the cause of action arose in Madison County, we cannot say that the court abused its discretion in granting the defendant's motion (see, McDonald v Southampton Hosp., supra). Mangano, J.P., Bracken, Spatt and Harwood, JJ., concur.


Summaries of

Tomao v. Colgate University

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Oct 11, 1988
143 A.D.2d 745 (N.Y. App. Div. 1988)
Case details for

Tomao v. Colgate University

Case Details

Full title:LAUREN C. TOMAO, Appellant, v. COLGATE UNIVERSITY, Respondent

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

Date published: Oct 11, 1988

Citations

143 A.D.2d 745 (N.Y. App. Div. 1988)

Citing Cases

O'Brien v. Vassar Bros. Hosp

ased on the convenience of material witnesses is discretionary (see, e.g., Pittman v. Maher, 202 A.D.2d 172;…