Cramer v. Cohn
Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York
1Opinion of the Court
Order affirmed, with ten dollars costs and disbursements. Memorandum: We disregard the convenience of six of defendants’ proposed witnesses who, according to defendants’ affidavits filed in support of the motion, will testify as experts. (Seafir v. Shutts, 190 App. Div. 518; Quinn v. Brooklyn Heights B. R. Co., 88 id. 57, 59.) The defendants have failed to establish that the convenience of a greater number of material witnesses and the ends of justice will be promoted by the change of venue sought. All concur. (The order denies a motion for change of venue. Present — Crosby, Lewis,…
2Cases cited1 opinion
- Seafir v. ShuttsAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1920
3Cited by3 opinions
- Saphir v. KruseNew York Supreme Court · 1957
- Efco Products, Inc. v. Long Island Baking, Inc.Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1958
- Poolet v. StateNew York Court of Claims · 1968