Majority
p. 97(27 Misc. Rep. 31.) DEAN v. CUNNINGHAM. (Supreme Court, Special Term, New York County. March, 1899.)
Headnote
Change of Venue—Sufficiency of Application.The papers used on a motion for a change of venue for the convenience of witnesses should disclose the occupation and the residence by. street and number, where in a city, of every person designated as a material witness. .
Action by Frederic Dean against Charles Cunningham. Motion to change the place of trial.
Denied.
Horace McGuire, for the motion.
Baldwin & Boston, opposed.
The only means of identification which the moving papers afford of the six persons designated as material and neces
p. 98
sary witnesses are that they reside in the city of Rochester, county of Monroe, and state of Hew York, and that three of them are employés of the defendant. Neither the street nor number of the house where any of these witnesses reside is given, and, except as above indicated, their occupation is not disclosed. This, to my mind, is insufficient in the light of the rules which control applications to change the place of trial. In Lyman v. Gramercy Club, 28 App. Div. 30 , 50 N. Y. Supp. 1004 , Green, J., speaking for a majority of the court, said (page 35, 28 App. Div., and page 1007, 50 N. Y. Supp.):
“The moving and opposing papers used upon such an. application should disclose the occupation and the residence, by street and number, of every person so designated as a material witness, when such person is a resident of a city; otherwise, the opposing party might be unable to ascertain whether such persons were in existence, or to otherwise verify the allegations respecting the necessity of calling them as witnesses at the trial.”
The motion is therefore denied, with $10 costs to the plaintiff, with leave to renew on additional papers.