| Matter of Michiel |
| 2008 NY Slip Op 01547 [48 AD3d 687] |
| February 19, 2008 |
| Appellate Division, Second Department |
| In the Matter of the Estate of Cathy Michiel, Deceased. MarkJackson, Appellant; Jordan Michiel, Respondent. (And RelatedProceedings.) |
—[*1] John T. Catterson, Hauppauge, N.Y., for respondent.
In a proceeding pursuant to SCPA 2103, the petitioner appeals from an order of theSurrogate's Court, Suffolk County (Braslow, S.), dated March 12, 2007, which denied that branchof his motion which was for a change of venue pursuant to CPLR 510 (2).
Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.
A motion to change venue pursuant to CPLR 510 (2) is addressed to the sound discretion ofthe trial court (see Milazzo v Long Is. Light. Co., 106 AD2d 495 [1984]), and itsdetermination will not be disturbed absent an improvident exercise of discretion (see Behrins & Behrins, P.C. v Chan, 40AD3d 560 [2007]). The movant is required to produce admissible factual evidencedemonstrating a strong possibility that an impartial trial cannot be obtained (see Albanese vWest Nassau Mental Health Ctr., 208 AD2d 665 [1994]). Here, the petitioner failed to meethis burden by offering only conclusory allegations, beliefs, suspicions, and feelings of possiblebias or the appearance of impropriety (see Cohen v Bernstein, 9 AD3d 573 [2004]; Warm v State ofNew York, 265 AD2d 546 [1999]; Jablonski v Trost, 245 AD2d 338 [1997]).Accordingly, the Surrogate's Court properly denied the motion for a change of venue (see Behrins & Behrins, P.C. v Chan, 40AD3d 560 [2007]). Spolzino, J.P., Skelos, Lifson and McCarthy, JJ., concur.