Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2002

Carrozza v. Galleria Mall

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York · Decided March 26, 2002

292 A.D.2d 279; 739 N.Y.S.2d 153; 2002 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3156

Cases that cite this one

6 later published cases cite this decision.

Roopnarine, Louie v. Zelena, Jeffrey (New York Supreme Court, Bronx County 2004)
Rochester Drug Co-Operative, Inc. v. Marcott Pharmacy North Corp. (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2005)
Hernandez v. Rodriguez (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2004)
Jacobs v. Banks Shapiro Gettinger Waldinger & Brennan, LLP (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2004)
Goldberg v. Bivins (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2002)
Montero v. Elrac, Inc. (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2002)

This list shows which later cases cite this one. It does not say how they treated it, and no review of that has been done. Not a substitute for Shepard’s or KeyCite — verify before relying.

Opinion of the Court

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Walter Tolub, J.), entered January 5, 2001, which granted defendants’ motion for a change of venue from New York County to Westchester County, unanimously reversed, on the law and the facts, with costs, and the motion denied.

In support of their motion to change venue for the promotion of the convenience of material witnesses (CPLR 510 [3]), defendants duly provided their proposed witnesses’ names and addresses (see, Leopold v Goldstein, 283 AD2d 319, 320). However, “[t]o establish inconvenience of witnesses it is necessary at least to contact them” (MacRobbie v Olivio, 200 AD2d 373, 374). Defendants failed to demonstrate that they contacted any of the witnesses they identified. Counsel asserted in an affirmation that the witnesses were willing to testify but did not say that counsel (or anyone on defendants’ behalf) had contacted them to ascertain their willingness to testify or the materiality of their testimony (see, Leopold, supra). At the same time, counsel stated that, “[t]o the extent the witnesses are not willing to testify, subpoenas would be issued.”

Plaintiffs’ counsel attempted to contact the nine witnesses identified by defendants. Two of these witnesses told counsel’s *280office they had not seen the accident and had not been contacted by anyone else regarding the case. Moreover, one of them said he would be willing to testify in New York County and swore an affidavit to that effect. The third witness died six months before defendants made their motion. The remaining witnesses could not be reached at the addresses provided by defendants. Concur — Williams, P.J., Ellerin, Rubin and Mar-low, JJ.

Case-law data current through December 31, 2025. Source: CourtListener bulk data.