Breindel v. LEVITT AND SONS, INCORPORATED
Decision Date | 25 October 1968 |
Docket Number | No. 68-C-889.,68-C-889. |
Citation | 294 F. Supp. 42 |
Parties | Howard BREINDEL and Linda Breindel, Plaintiffs, v. LEVITT AND SONS, INCORPORATED, Defendant. |
Court | U.S. District Court — Eastern District of New York |
Howard Breindel, New York City, for plaintiffs.
White & Case, New York City, for defendants; David Hartfield, Jr., and Paul Bschorr, New York City, of counsel.
Plaintiffs, Husband and Wife, allege breach of contract, breach of warranty, negligence, fraud and misrepresentation in connection with the purchase of a new home in Defendant's Monmouth Heights development situated in Manalapan Township, New Jersey. Suit was brought in the Eastern District of New York, close to Manhattan where Plaintiff HOWARD BREINDEL works and the same District in which the Defendant's executive offices are located. Defendant moves under § 1404(a) of Title 28, U.S.C.A. for an order transferring the action to the United States District Court in Trenton, New Jersey.
The standard by which such a motion is to be judged is whether the transfer of the action is "for the convenience of parties and witnesses, in the interest of justice". 28 U.S.C.A. § 1404 (a). "It has been consistently held * * * that plaintiff's choice of a forum will not be disturbed unless the balance of convenience weighs heavily in favor of defendant." Franklin v. Blaylock, 218 F.Supp. 261, 262 (S.D.N.Y.1963), mandamus denied, Blaylock v. McLean, 319 F.2d 533 (2d Cir. 1963). Such a balance has not been shown here.
Defendant maintains that its witnesses will include persons resident in Manalapan Township, New Jersey, and it would be inconvenient for them to appear at trial in New York City. However, such assertions are not sufficient as:
This has not been done by Defendant.
On the other hand, HOWARD BREINDEL, one of the Plaintiffs, and his own counsel, states he works in New York City, and a trial in New Jersey would be a great inconvenience to him. When a transfer of the case would merely shift the inconvenience from one party to the other, the plaintiff's choice of forum should not be disturbed. DeLuxe Game Corp. v. Wonder Products Co., 166 F. Supp. 56, 61 (S.D.N.Y.1958). While the inconvenience of counsel is irrelevant as a factor to consider in weighing change of venue, Cressman v. United Air Lines, Inc., 158 F.Supp. 404, 407 (S.D.N.Y. 1958), the convenience of a party is relevant, and Mr. Breindel is a plaintiff as well as counsel in the case.
The possibility of a view of the premises, if such a view is appropriate to the action, is a factor to be considered. Gulf Oil Corp. v. Gilbert, 330 U.S. 501, 508, ...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Brown v. Marriott Int'l, Inc., 14-CV-5960 (SLT) (MDG)
...shift the inconvenience from one party to the other, the plaintiff's choice of forum should not be disturbed." Breindel v. Levitt & Sons, Inc., 294 F. Supp. 42, 44 (E.D.N.Y. 1968) (citation omitted). "Rather than simply characterizing the case as one in negligence, contract, or some other a......
-
Medicenters of Amer., Inc. v. T and V Realty & Equip. Corp.
...effect of transfer is merely to shift the inconvenience from one party or group of witnesses to another. Cf. Breindel v. Levitt and Sons, Inc., 294 F.Supp. 42, 44 (E.D.N.Y.1968). It is the "balance" of convenience which is in question. Nizin v. Bright, 342 F.Supp. 489 (S.D.N.Y. 1971). Grant......
-
Barrios v. Dade County of State of Florida, 69 Civil 2428.
...577, 204 N.E.2d 622 (1965). See also id. at 118, 256 N.Y.S.2d 577, 204 N.E.2d 622. 22 See also note 13 supra. 23 Breindel v. Levitt & Sons, 294 F.Supp. 42, 43 (E.D.N.Y.1968); Thomson & McKinnon v. Minyard, 291 F.Supp. 573, 576 (S.D.N.Y.1968); Oil & Gas Ventures — First 1958 Fund, Ltd. v. Ku......
-
Sorrels Steel Co., Inc. v. Great Southwest Corp.
...applicable state law appears to be clear. See Busch v. Sea World of Ohio, 95 F.R.D. 336, 341 (W.D. Pa.1982); Breindel v. Levitt and Sons, Inc., 294 F.Supp. 42, 44 (E.D.N.Y.1968). These defendants have made no contention that, if applicable, Florida law in this area is unclear, nor have they......