Learn About the Law
Get help with your legal needs
FindLaw’s Learn About the Law features thousands of informational articles to help you understand your options. And if you’re ready to hire an attorney, find one in your area who can help.
Jack D. BYRNE, etc., et al., Plaintiffs-Respondents, v. RYDER TRUCK RENTAL, INC., et al., Defendants-Appellants.
Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Richard Lowe III, J.), entered May 11, 2001, which denied defendants' motion to change venue from New York County to Saratoga County pursuant to CPLR 510(3), and order, Supreme Court, New York County (Milton Tingling, J.), entered on or about October 12, 2001, which, to the extent appealable, denied defendants' motion to renew their change of venue motion, unanimously affirmed, without costs.
In this action to recover for personal injuries allegedly sustained in a motor vehicle accident that took place in Saratoga County, the motion court correctly denied defendants' motion to change venue pursuant to CPLR 510(3). Although defendants identified a prospective nonparty witness, they failed to make the requisite demonstration that the witness would be willing to give testimony material to the issues in the case and that the witness would be seriously inconvenienced if she had to travel to New York County to testify (see, CPLR 510[3]; Heinemann v. Grunfeld, 224 A.D.2d 204, 637 N.Y.S.2d 141). Renewal was properly denied since the purportedly new material offered by defendants was available to them at the time of their original motion (see, Elson v. Defren, 283 A.D.2d 109, 113, 726 N.Y.S.2d 407). Moreover, the ostensibly new material would not have required a different disposition since defendants made no demonstration as to the materiality of the anticipated testimony (see, Pellegrino v. File, 283 A.D.2d 266, 724 N.Y.S.2d 165; Velasquez v. C.F.T., Inc., 240 A.D.2d 178, 657 N.Y.S.2d 707).
Thank you for your feedback!
As the largest network of trusted legal brands, we help firms build authority across the platforms consumers and AI systems rely on most. Our network helps attorneys strengthen visibility, credibility, and preference where legal decisions begin.
Decided: March 28, 2002
Court: Supreme Court, Appellate Division, First Department, New York.
Search our directory by legal issue
Enter information in one or both fields (Required)
Harness the power of our directory with your own profile. Select the button below to sign up.
Learn more about FindLaw’s newsletters, including our terms of use and privacy policy.
Get help with your legal needs
FindLaw’s Learn About the Law features thousands of informational articles to help you understand your options. And if you’re ready to hire an attorney, find one in your area who can help.
Search our directory by legal issue
Enter information in one or both fields (Required)