You are here: / / DEFENDANTS’ DEMAND FOR A CHANGE OF VENUE WAS PROPERLY DISMISSED AS...

DEFENDANTS’ DEMAND FOR A CHANGE OF VENUE WAS PROPERLY DISMISSED AS UNTIMELY UNDER THE ELECTRONIC FILING RULES (TO WHICH DEFENDANTS HAD CONSENTED).

The First Department determined defendants demand for a change of venue was untimely under the electronic filing rules, to which defendants had consented:

Supreme Court properly concluded that defendants’ motion was untimely. Having consented to electronic filing, defendants were required to serve their papers electronically (Uniform Rules for Trial Cts [22 NYCRR] § 202.5-b[d][1]), and indeed served their demand for change of venue, together with their answer, by e-filing the documents on July 14, 2015 … . Having served their demand, defendants were required to bring their motion to change venue within 15 days, or by July 29, 2015 (CPLR 511). However, defendants did not bring their motion until July 31, 2015, rendering it untimely. That defendants also elected to serve their demand via United States mail did not extend the deadline for their motion under CPLR 2103(b)(2). Because they consented to participate in Supreme Court’s e-filing system, defendants were bound by the applicable rules governing service. Woodward v Millbrook Ventures LLC, 2017 NY Slip Op 02522, 1st Dept 3-30-17

 

You might also like
Doctrine of Primary Assumption of Risk Applies to Informal Game of Catch on a Paved Handball Court
Only Attorney Can Represent Voluntary Association—Appeals Dismissed
NEW YORK CITY LOCAL LAW BANNING E-CIGARETTES DOES NOT VIOLATE THE ONE SUBJECT RULE OF THE NEW YORK STATE CONSTITUTION, THE MUNICIPAL HOME RULE LAW OR THE NEW YORK CITY CHARTER.
PLAINTIFFS RAISED QUESTIONS OF FACT (1) WHETHER THE POLICE ACTED IN RECKLESS DISREGARD OF THE SAFETY OF OTHERS DURING A HIGH-SPEED CHASE AND IN FAILING TO NOTIFY THE DISPATCHER OF THE CHASE, AND (2) WHETHER THE CHASE WAS A PROXIMATE OR CONCURRENT CAUSE OF PLAINTFFS’ ACCIDENT (THERE WAS NO CONTACT WITH EITHER VEHICLE INVOLVED IN THE CHASE) (FIRST DEPT).
Theories Not Included in Notice of Claim Precluded
Relief Granted By Court Went Too Far Beyond Relief Requested
PLAINTIFF ENTITLED TO SUMMARY JUDGMENT ON HIS LABOR LAW 240(1) CAUSE OF ACTION, FALL FROM A-FRAME LADDER.
STATUTORY PRESUMPTION THAT THE PAINT CONTAINED LEAD DID NOT APPLY BECAUSE THERE WAS NO EVIDENCE THE INTERIOR OF THE BUILDING WAS PAINTED PRIOR TO JANUARY 1, 1960; HOWEVER QUESTIONS OF FACT WERE RAISED ABOUT THE PRESENCE OF LEAD PAINT AND THE CONNECTION BETWEEN THE PAINT AND INFANT PLAINTIFF’S LEAD POISONING, DEFENDANT’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED (FIRST DEPT).

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

QUESTION OF FACT, CREATED BY CONFLICTING EXPERTS, WHETHER OUTSIDE STEEL STAIRCASE... RECORDS OF PROCEEDINGS BEFORE THE CIVILIAN COMPLAINT REVIEW BOARD ARE POLICE...