Court Opinion

ID: 9399030
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-06-01 17:07:11.919106+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:19:38.222932
License: Public Domain

Hidalgo v Hoge (2023 NY Slip Op 02940)

Hidalgo v Hoge

2023 NY Slip Op 02940

Decided on June 01, 2023

Appellate Division, First Department

Published by New York State Law Reporting Bureau pursuant to Judiciary Law § 431.

This opinion is uncorrected and subject to revision before publication in the Official Reports.

Decided and Entered: June 01, 2023

Before: Moulton, J.P., González, Mendez, Rodriguez, JJ. 

Index No. 157648/21 Appeal No. 378 Case No. 2022-03185 

[*1]David A. Hidalgo, Plaintiff-Respondent,
vSavanna Hoge et al., Defendants-Appellants.

Wilson Elser Moskowitz Edelman & Dicker LLP, New York (Patrick J. Lawless of counsel), for appellants.
Essner & Kobin, LLP, New York (Howard Essner of counsel), for respondent.

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (James G. Clynes, J.), entered March 31, 2022, which denied defendants' motion to change venue pursuant to CPLR 510(3), unanimously affirmed, without costs.
Plaintiff was injured when, while riding a bicycle in Suffolk County, he was struck by a vehicle owned and operated by defendants. Plaintiff designated venue in New York County based on his residence there.
The motion court providently exercised its discretion in denying defendants' motion to change venue pursuant to CPLR 510(3) (see Leopold v Goldstein, 283 AD2d 319, 320 [1st Dept 2001]). Although defendants provided affidavits from four potential nonparty witnesses, they did not establish that justice would be promoted by a change of venue, since the affidavits of those witnesses lacked substance concerning the materiality and relevancy of their proposed testimony (see Gissen v Boy Scouts of Am., 26 AD3d 289, 290-291 [1st Dept 2006]). Furthermore, defendants failed to demonstrate the manner in which the potential nonparty witnesses would be inconvenienced by a trial in New York County, rather than Suffolk County (see Jacobs v Banks Shapiro Gettinger Waldinger & Brennan, LLP, 9 AD3d 299 [1st Dept 2004]).THIS CONSTITUTES THE DECISION AND ORDER
OF THE SUPREME COURT, APPELLATE DIVISION, FIRST DEPARTMENT.
ENTERED: June 1, 2023