• Skip to primary navigation
  • Skip to main content
  • Skip to primary sidebar

Reinsurance Focus

New reinsurance-related and arbitration developments from Carlton Fields

  • About
    • Events
  • Articles
    • Treaty Tips
    • Special Focus
    • Market
  • Contact
  • Exclusive Content
    • Blog Staff Picks
    • Cat Risks
    • Regulatory Modernization
    • Webinars
  • Subscribe
You are here: Home / Arbitration / Court Decisions / Reinsurance Claims / NEW YORK APPELLATE COURT AFFIRMS DENIAL OF MOTION FOR CHANGE OF VENUE

NEW YORK APPELLATE COURT AFFIRMS DENIAL OF MOTION FOR CHANGE OF VENUE

January 25, 2017 by John Pitblado

In this reinsurance coverage case in a New York court, certain defendant reinsurers made a motion for a change of venue under NY CPLR 510 (2) on the ground that “an impartial trial could not be had” based on the fact that plaintiffs’ former lead counsel, who was scheduled to be a fact witness, had retired from law firm practice and was now a judge of that same court’s Commercial Division. The New York court denied the motion, and the reinsurers appealed.

On appeal, the New York appellate court noted that the lower court correctly determined that the reinsurers’ motion for a change of venue was untimely, in that they waited “until the eve of trial,” after plaintiffs’ former counsel’s was designated a judge of the court’s Commercial Division, which was nine months after he was first designated as a judge of the court. The court noted that all of the arguments raised by the reinsurers in support of the venue change when he was appointed to the Commercial Division existed at the time he was first appointed as judge of the court.

Noting that to succeed on a CPLR 510(2) motion, a movant must demonstrate by factual evidence that there is a strong possibility that an impartial trial cannot be had in the venue. But the New York appellate court concluded that the reinsurers’ arguments consisted not of factual evidence, but of conclusory allegations, beliefs, and suspicions. The court noted that “[t]here is no personal relationship between the trial judge and the judge-witness and no personal relationship between the judge-witness and the party. The mere fact that the jury may discover a nonparty witness is a judge is not enough to prejudice a defendant where a plaintiff does not seek to exploit the witness’s status to enhance his credibility. Moreover, the same concerns would exist, no matter in what venue the case is tried.” Thus, the court affirmed the lower court’s denial of the reinsurers’ motion.

U.S. Fidelity & Guaranty Co. v. American Re-Insurance Co., No. 604517/02 (N.Y. App. 1st Dep’t Dec. 22, 2016).

This post written by Jeanne Kohler.

See our disclaimer.

Filed Under: Reinsurance Claims

Primary Sidebar

Carlton Fields Logo

A blog focused on reinsurance and arbitration law and practice by the attorneys of Carlton Fields.

Focused Topics

Hot Topics

Read the results of Artemis’ latest survey of reinsurance market professionals concerning the state of the market and their intentions for 2019.

Recent Updates

Market (1/27/2019)
Articles (1/2/2019)

See our advanced search tips.

Subscribe

If you would like to receive updates to Reinsurance Focus® by email, visit our Subscription page.
© 2008–2025 Carlton Fields, P.A. · Carlton Fields practices law in California as Carlton Fields, LLP · Disclaimers and Conditions of Use

Reinsurance Focus® is a registered service mark of Carlton Fields. All Rights Reserved.

Please send comments and questions to the Reinsurance Focus Administrators

Carlton Fields publications should not be construed as legal advice on any specific facts or circumstances. The contents are intended for general information and educational purposes only, and should not be relied on as if it were advice about a particular fact situation. The distribution of this publication is not intended to create, and receipt of it does not constitute, an attorney-client relationship with Carlton Fields. This publication may not be quoted or referred to in any other publication or proceeding without the prior written consent of the firm, to be given or withheld at our discretion. To request reprint permission for any of our publications, please contact us. The views set forth herein are the personal views of the author and do not necessarily reflect those of the firm. This site may contain hypertext links to information created and maintained by other entities. Carlton Fields does not control or guarantee the accuracy or completeness of this outside information, nor is the inclusion of a link to be intended as an endorsement of those outside sites. This site may be considered attorney advertising in some jurisdictions.