You are here: / / Plaintiff Is a Retired Judge—Change of Venue Appropriate to Avoid...

Plaintiff Is a Retired Judge—Change of Venue Appropriate to Avoid Appearance of Impropriety

The Second Department determined defendants’ motion to change venue in a wrongful death action should have been granted. Plaintiff is a retired Supreme Court justice in the county where the action was brought. Change of venue was appropriate to avoid the appearance of impropriety:

A court, upon motion, may change the place of trial of an action where there is reason to believe that an impartial trial cannot be had in the proper county (see CPLR 510[2]). Generally, a motion for a change of venue is committed to the sound discretion of the trial court …, and the resolution of such an application will not be disturbed absent an improvident exercise of that discretion … .

To succeed on a motion to change venue pursuant to CPLR 510(2), the movant is required to produce admissible factual evidence demonstrating a strong possibility that an impartial trial cannot be obtained in the county where venue was properly placed … .

Under the circumstances of this case, the Supreme Court improvidently denied the defendants’ motion to change venue. Although he is now retired, the plaintiff’s tenure as a Justice of the Supreme Court, Queens County, supports a change of venue of the action from Queens County to Nassau County to “protect[ ] the court from even a possible appearance of impropriety” … . Lisa v Parikh, 2015 NY Slip Op 06897, 2nd Dept 9-23-15

 

You might also like
PLAINTIFF ALLEGED DEFENDANT NEGLIGENTLY PERFORMED A ROBOTIC ASSISTED LAPAROSCOPIC ADRENALECTOMY; PLAINTIFF’S EXPERT, A GENERAL SURGEON WHO WAS EXPERIENCED IN LAPAROSCOPIC SURGERY, BUT NOT ROBOTIC SURGERY, SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN PRECLUDED FROM TESTIFYING; THE LACK OF EXPERIENCE WITH ROBOTIC SURGERY WENT TO THE WEIGHT OF THE TESTIMONY, NOT ITS ADMISSIBILITY (SECOND DEPT).
ALLOWING UBER DRIVERS TO PICK UP PASSENGERS VIA SMARTPHONE APPLICATION IS NOT AN UNCONSTITUTIONAL TAKING OF THE PROPERTY OF TAXI CAB AND LIMOUSINE DRIVERS (SECOND DEPT).
EVIDENCE OF GENERAL CLEANING PRACTICES NOT ENOUGH TO DEMONSTRATE LACK OF CONSTRUCTIVE NOTICE IN A SLIP AND FALL CASE.
THE PROOF THAT PLAINTIFF SLIPPED AND FELL AT A BUS STOP, WHERE THE CITY IS RESPONSIBLE FOR KEEPING THE AREA SAFE, AS OPPOSED TO THE SIDEWALK ABUTTING DEFENDANT’S PROPERTY, WHERE DEFENDANT IS RESPONSIBLE, WAS NOT SUFFICIENT TO WARRANT SUMMARY JUDGMENT IN FAVOR OF DEFENDANT (SECOND DEPT).
INCIDENT REPORTS DID NOT PROVIDE THE CITY WITH NOTICE OF THE ESSENTIAL FACTS OF PLAINTIFF’S NEGLIGENCE AND LABOR LAW CLAIMS, PETITION TO FILE A LATE NOTICE OF CLAIM PROPERLY DENIED (SECOND DEPT).
QUESTION OF FACT WHETHER THE ABSENCE OF A SECOND HANDRAIL, A VIOLATION OF THE BUILDING CODE, WAS A PROXIMATE CAUSE OF PLAINTIFF’S SLIP AND FALL IN A STAIRWAY, DEFENDANTS’ MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED (SECOND DEPT).
CALCULATONS RELIED UPON BY THE REFEREE WERE BASED ON UNIDENTIFIED AND UNPRODUCED BUSINESS RECORDS RENDERING THE CALCULATIONS HEARSAY; THE REPORT SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN CONFIRMED (SECOND DEPT).
STUDENT ASSUMED THE RISK OF INJURY DURING LACROSSE PRACTICE.

Categories

Sign Up for the Mailing List to Be Notified When the Site Is Updated.

  • This field is for validation purposes and should be left unchanged.

Copyright © 2026 New York Appellate Digest, Inc.
Site by CurlyHost | Privacy Policy

A Town’s Zoning Powers Include the Creation of a Zoning District for Senior... Loan Secured by Shares in a Cooperative Apartment Was Not a “Home Loan”...