
    Jerome Hirshkind, Appellant, v. Joseph Mayer, Respondent.
    
      Change of venue for convenience of witnesses — not from a rural county to New York.
    
    The place of trial of an action will not be changed from, a rural county to the county of New York simply to subserve the convenience of fitnesses,
    Appeal by the plaintiff, Jerome Hirshkind, from an order of the Supreme Court, made at the Kings County Special Term and entered in the officé of the clerk of the county of Westchester on the 5th day of February, 1904, granting the defendant’s motion to change the place of trial of the action from the county of Westchester to the county of New York.
    
      Louis Wertheimer, for the appellant.
    
      Jacob Bachrach, for the respondent.
   Per Curiam :

The order appealed from in this case changes the place of trial of the action from the county of Westchester to the county of New York. The motion for such a change was based upon the ground that the latter county was the proper one. As the plaintiff resides in the county where the venue is laid, the motion could not properly have been granted upon the ground assigned. It is true that in the moving papers allegations are made with the design of showing that the convenience of witnesses would be subserved by the change, but it has been frequently decided in' this department that a change in the place of trial will not be ordered upon that ground alone, where the change desired is from a rural county to the county of New York. (Quinn v. Brooklyn Heights R. R. Co., 88 App. Div. 57.)

The order should be reversed, with ten dollars costs and disbursements, and motion denied, with costs.

All concurred.

Order reversed, with ten dollars costs and disbursements, and motion denied, with costs.  