Legal Opinion
County of Onondaga v. Home Insurance
Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York
Decided October 1, 1999PublishedCited by 4 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
—Order unanimously affirmed without costs. Memorandum: We reject the contention of defendants that Supreme Court abused its discretion in denying their motion for a change of venue pursuant to CPLR 510 (2) because there is reason to believe that they would be unable to obtain a fair and impartial trial in Onondaga County. A motion for a change of venue is addressed to the sound discretion of the court and, absent an improvident exercise of discretion, the court’s determination will not be disturbed on appeal (see, Filler v Cornell Univ., 147 AD2d 610; Hurlbut v Whalen, 58 AD2d 311, 315-316).…
2Cases cited4 opinions
- Hurlbut v. WhalenAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1977
- Krupka v. County of WestchesterAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1990
- Filler v. Cornell UniversityAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1989
- Jablonski v. TrostAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1997
3Cited by4 opinions
- DeBolt v. BarbosaAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 2001
- 1093 Group, LLC v. CanaleAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 2010
- Gossel v. Beazer East, Inc.New York Supreme Court · 2006
- PUTNAM-CORDOVANO, ROBIN v. CSX CORPORATIONAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 2011