The record does not indicate that "there is reason to believe that an impartial trial cannot be had in the proper county". (CPLR 510, subd 2.) Plaintiff's (Millard L. Midonick) official position in New York County does not in and of itself justify an inference that a fair trial cannot be had (Lent v Ryder, 47 App Div 415; Ingo v Casey, 175 Misc. 805, affd 260 App Div 1024). Since defendants' motion was based merely upon a belief
Welcome to the leading source of independent legal reporting
Let's get started
Sign on now to see your case.
Or view more than 10 million decisions and orders.
MIDONICK v. PEPPERTREE HILL DEV. CORP.
49 A.D.2d 721 (1975)
Dorothy R. Midonick et al., Respondents, v. Peppertree Hill Development Corporation et al., Appellants
Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York, First Department.https://leagle.com/images/logo.png
September 25, 1975
September 25, 1975
Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York, First Department.
Listed below are the cases that are cited in this Featured Case. Click the citation to see the full text of the cited case. Citations are also linked in the body of the Featured Case.
Cited Cases
- No Cases Found
Listed below are those cases in which this Featured Case is cited. Click on the case name to see the full text of the citing case.
