Margolis v. United Parcel Serv., Inc., 57 A.D.3d 371 (N.Y. App. Div. 1st Dep't 2008). · Go Syfert
Margolis v. United Parcel Serv., Inc., 57 A.D.3d 371 (N.Y. App. Div. 1st Dep't 2008). Cases Citing This Book View Copy Cite
7 citation events (7 in the last 25 years) across 1 distinct court.
Cited for
At page 372 discretionary change of venue pursuant to CPLR 510 (3), defendants failed to show that material nonparty witnesses would be inconvenienced by testifying in New…2 citing casesopening of page *372 (no citing court says what it cites this page for)
  • Prechtl v. Trane U.S., Inc., 2023 NY Slip Op 00935 (N.Y. App. Div. 1st Dep't 2023).published 2 cites
    Furthermore, defendant failed to sustain its burden under CPLR 510(3) of identifying any material nonparty witnesses who would be inconvenienced by a trial in New York County rather than Delaware County ( see Manzari v Burrows , 89 AD3d 44…
  • Marte v. Lampert, 2023 NY Slip Op 00375 (N.Y. App. Div. 1st Dep't 2023).published 2 cites
    While the situs of the accident provides a basis to change venue to Nassau County, defendants failed to sustain their burden, as the party moving for a discretionary change of venue pursuant to CPLR 510 (3), that there are material witness…
Other citing cases1 with no pin cite or quoted language on record
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
Joshua Evan Margolis
v.
United Parcel Service, Inc.
Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York.
Dec 18, 2008.
Published opinion
57 A.D.3d 371
Cited by 5 opinions  |  Published

In this personal injury action involving a vehicular accident in Nassau County, plaintiff properly placed venue in New York County based on the location in that county of the corporate defendant’s principal office (see CPLR 503 [c]). In seeking a[*372] discretionary change of venue pursuant to CPLR 510 (3), defendants failed to show that material nonparty witnesses would be inconvenienced by testifying in New York County instead of Nassau (see Martinez v Dutchess Landaq, Inc., 301 AD2d 424 [2003]). There was no evidence presented that any witness would be inconvenienced by testifying in New York County. Furthermore, one witness cited by defendants was defendant Ciaccio, who is both a party and an employee of the corporate defendant, and another was an employee of the corporate defendant who was not a witness to the accident. Defendants did not identify the remaining police and medical witnesses, did not explain the materiality of their testimony, and did not set forth their willingness to testify or whether they had even been contacted. Concur—Mazzarelli, J.R, Gonzalez, Catterson, McGuire and Acosta, JJ.