Gerber v. B.C.R. Hotel Corp.
| Decision Date | 09 May 1960 |
| Citation | 201 N.Y.S.2d 749,10 A.D.2d 956 |
| Parties | Bella GERBER and Charles Gerber, Respondents, v. B. C. R. HOTEL CORP., Appellant. |
| Court | New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division |
Turetzky, Cohen & Rosen, Monticello, for appellant; Bernard M. Rosen, Monticello, of counsel.
Leon Grossman, South Fallsburg, for respondents; Allen H. Weiss, New York City, of counsel.
Before BELDOCK, Acting P. J., and UGHETTA, CHRIST, PETTE and BRENNAN, JJ.
MEMORANDUM BY THE COURT.
In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, and for medical expenses and loss of services, the defendant appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Queens County, entered March 30, 1959, denying its motion to change the place of trial of the action from Queens County to Sullivan County, on the ground that the convenience of material witnesses and the ends of justice will be promoted thereby (Civil Practice Act, § 187).
Order reversed, with $10 costs and disbursements, and motion granted.
The convenience of the anticipated witnesses who are parties to the action or who are in the employ of a party, is entitled to subordinate consideration only (Slavin v. Whispell, 5 A.D.2d 296, 298, 171 N.Y.S.2d 892, 894; Wilson v. Winco Estates, 266 App.Div. 795, 41 N.Y.S.2d 684). The only other anticipated witnesses are two physicians. One of them is named, and his address is given. He resides and has his office in Sullivan County, and he attended the injured plaintiff immediately after the accident, at the site thereof in Sullivan County. The other physician is said to have treated her thereafter in Queens County, where she resides. However, neither his name nor his address is disclosed. Even if the balance as between the two physicians were equal, the fact that the initial medical treatment was given in Sullivan County is entitled to consideration (Conner v. Jacobs, 5 A.D.2d 1046, 173 N.Y.S.2d 472). These factors alone are of some persuasion that the trial ought to take place in Sullivan County. However, doubt if any is dispelled by application of the principles that, if all things be equal, a transitory action should be tried in the county where it arose, and that, as between a rural county and an urban county, the former should be chosen, since an earlier trial can be had there (Slavin v. Whispell, supra; Bernstein v. McKane, 3 A.D.2d 764, 160 N.Y.S.2d 507; Hahn v. Unverdorben, 9 A.D.2d 9, 189 N.Y.S.2d 440; Efco Products, Inc. v. Long Island Baking, Inc., 6 A.D.2d 832, 176...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Thomas v. Small
...A.D.2d 912, 913, 470 N.Y.S.2d 747), and nonmaterial witnesses should at best be given only slight consideration (Gerber v. B.C.R. Hotel Corp., 10 A.D.2d 956, 201 N.Y.S.2d 749). In further support of retaining venue in Kings County, the plaintiff avers that she and the relatives of the deced......
-
Stonewood Hotel Corp., Inc. v. Davis Development, Inc.
...v. Mullen, 135 Minn. 179, 160 N.W. 494 (1916); Thomas v. Small, 121 A.D.2d 622, 504 N.Y.S.2d 132 (1986); Gerber v. B.C.R. Hotel Corp., 10 A.D.2d 956, 201 N.Y.S.2d 749 (1960); 77 Am.Jur.2d Venue Sec. 65 (1975). The instant action was an eviction action under Ch. 33-06, N.D.C.C., which is a s......
-
Manessis v. Smoke
...factors, the place where the cause of action arose (Goldman v. Weisman, supra, 23 A.D.2d 634, 257 N.Y.S.2d 1; Gerber v. B.C.R. Hotel Corp., 10 A.D.2d 956, 201 N.Y.S. 749; Vitti v. Case, 285 App.Div. 857, 136 N.Y.S.2d 709), the convenience of medical witnesses who treated the parties (Kiames......
-
Searle v. Suburban Propane Div. of Quantum Chemical Corp.
...Paul's Catholic Church, 162 A.D.2d 1017, 1018, 557 N.Y.S.2d 804; Ray v. Beauter, 90 A.D.2d 988, 456 N.Y.S.2d 593; Gerber v. B.C.R. Hotel Corp., 10 A.D.2d 956, 201 N.Y.S.2d 749). By designating an improper county for venue, plaintiff forfeited her right to designate the place of trial (see, ......