Hyperlawhypertext legal database Prado v. Walsh-Atkinson Co. 212 A.D.2d 489

← Cases

Prado v. Walsh-Atkinson Co.

212 A.D.2d 489 Court N.Y. App. Div. Decision date 1995-02-28 English

Contents

Majority

p. 489
Jose Prado, Respondent, v Walsh-Atkinson Company, Inc., et al., Appellants. Jose Prado, Respondent, v Komatsu Ltd., Defendant, and Komatsu America Industries Corp., Appellant.
[623 NYS2d 214]

—Order, Supreme Court, Bronx County (Bertram Katz, J.), entered August 16, 1994, which, insofar as appealed from, denied defendants’ motion for a change of venue from Bronx County to Queens County, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

The requested change of venue was properly denied in the absence of a statement that the witnesses whose convenience defendants espouse were contacted, and indicating the manner in which they would be inconvenienced (see, Soufan v Argo Pneumatic Co., 170 AD2d 289 , 290; Molod v Amundsen, 194 AD2d 429 ). There is no presumption that a witness will be inconvenienced merely because the courthouse is located in a county other than where the witness lives or works (Pittman v Maher, 202 AD2d 172 , 177).

We note that the motion was properly entertained on the merits since it was made while there was still outstanding

p. 490
discovery and its timing did not otherwise prejudice plaintiff (see, Soufan v Argo Pneumatic Co., supra, at 291 ). Concur—Sullivan, J. P., Rosenberger, Wallach and Rubin, JJ.

Cases cited