## Facts

- Lisa Martin and Erna H. Mieth were domiciliaries of Toronto, Canada.
- Martin was injured on December 20, 1970, while riding as a passenger in Mieth’s car on Route 60 in Chautauqua County, New York, when the vehicle left the roadway and overturned.
- Martin suffered serious injuries and was taken to Buffalo General Hospital in New York.
- Martin sued Mieth for personal injuries in Supreme Court, New York County; jurisdiction was obtained under New York’s nonresident motorist statute (Vehicle and Traffic Law § 253).
- Mieth moved to dismiss on forum non conveniens grounds, asserting insufficient nexus to New York; plaintiff opposed with an affidavit stressing that New York police and hospital records and several key witnesses were located in New York and not subject to Canadian subpoenas, and the motion was denied.
- Mieth then moved to change venue to Chautauqua County based on convenience of those same witnesses; plaintiff opposed with a materially different affidavit minimizing the need for those witnesses, and the motion was denied.
- The Appellate Division affirmed (3–2), with dissent characterizing plaintiff’s shifting positions as forum shopping; leave to appeal was granted.

## Issues

1. Whether the trial court abused its discretion by denying a motion to change venue to Chautauqua County where the accident occurred and where relevant witnesses were located.
2. Whether a party’s materially inconsistent factual representations about witness importance and convenience, made to obtain favorable discretionary rulings, should affect venue determinations.

## Decision

- The Court of Appeals reversed the Appellate Division and Supreme Court orders.
- The court granted the defendant’s motion to change venue from New York County to Chautauqua County.
- The court relied on the accident’s location and the practical convenience of witnesses and evidence, and treated plaintiff’s contradictory affidavits as improper forum-shopping tactics warranting corrective discretionary action.

## Legal Principles

- Venue-transfer and forum non conveniens determinations consider convenience of witnesses, location of evidence, and the interests of justice.
- A court may treat materially inconsistent factual positions on successive motions—used to secure or preserve a preferred forum or county—as a basis to reject a party’s resistance to transfer.
- Discretion in venue decisions can be abused when the court permits transparent manipulation of convenience factors, particularly when prior sworn representations supported an earlier ruling.

## Conclusion

The Court of Appeals ordered transfer of venue to the county where the accident occurred, holding that convenience and fairness favored trial in Chautauqua County and that a plaintiff could not rely on New York-based witnesses and records to defeat dismissal and then deny their importance to block a venue change.


Martin v. Mieth, 35 N.Y.2d 414 (N.Y. 1974)