You are here: / / MOTION TO CHANGE VENUE BROUGHT IN WRONG COUNTY SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN ENTERTAINED...

MOTION TO CHANGE VENUE BROUGHT IN WRONG COUNTY SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN ENTERTAINED (THIRD DEPT).

The Third Department, reversing Supreme Court, determine the motion to change venue was not brought in any county allowed by the statute and should not have been granted:

​

It is well-settled that a motion to change venue on a discretionary ground, such as the convenience of material witnesses pursuant to CPLR 510 (3), “must be made in the county in which the action is pending, or in any county in that judicial district, or in any adjoining county”… . Here, it is undisputed that the action is pending in Kings County and that Sullivan County is not in the same judicial district as Kings County nor is it an adjoining county. In light of this, we find that defendants failed to bring their motion in a proper county and, thus, Supreme Court should not have entertained the motion … . Minenko v Swinging Bridge Camp Grounds of N.Y., Inc., 2017 NY Slip Op 08245, Third Dept 11-22-17

 

CIVIL PROCEDURE (MOTION TO CHANGE VENUE BROUGHT IN WRONG COUNTY SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN ENTERTAINED (THIRD DEPT))/VENUE (CIVIL PROCEDURE, MOTION TO CHANGE VENUE BROUGHT IN WRONG COUNTY SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN ENTERTAINED (THIRD DEPT))/CPLR 510 (MOTION TO CHANGE VENUE BROUGHT IN WRONG COUNTY SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN ENTERTAINED (THIRD DEPT))/VENUE (CIVIL PROCEDURE, MOTION TO CHANGE VENUE BROUGHT IN WRONG COUNTY SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN ENTERTAINED (THIRD DEPT))

You might also like
NURSE PROVIDING HOME HEALTH CARE SERVICES WAS AN EMPLOYEE ENTITLED TO BENEFITS (THIRD DEPT).
NOXIOUS ODORS FROM A LANDFILL DID NOT SUPPORT THE PUBLIC NUISANCE AND NEGLIGENCE CAUSES OF ACTION; COMPLAINT DISMISSED (THIRD DEPT).
HEARING NECESSARY TO ASSESS ATTORNEY’S FEES, CRITERIA EXPLAINED.
Property Owned by Religious Group Entitled to Real Property Tax Exemption
DOCUMENTS CREATED AND HELD BY A PRIVATE ENTITY PURSUANT TO THE REGULATIONS OF A STATE AGENCY ARE NOT “RECORDS” WHICH THE STATE AGENCY MUST DISCLOSE PURSUANT TO THE FREEDOM OF INFORMATION LAW, DESPITE THE FACT THAT THE AGENCY CAN DEMAND PRODUCTION OF THE DOCUMENTS (THIRD DEPT).
CLAIMANT PROPERLY FOUND TO HAVE A 35% LOSS OF WAGE EARNING CAPACITY DESPITE HIS HAVING RETURNED TO WORK FULL-TIME.
Finding that Claimant’s Absenteeism Was Not Disqualifying Misconduct Was Supported by Substantial Evidence; Courts’ Review Powers in this Context Explained
THE AFFIDAVIT FROM PLAINTIFF’S ACCIDENT RECONSTRUCTION EXPERT WAS ESSENTIALLY THE SOLE BASIS FOR PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT IN THIS BICYCLE-CAR ACCIDENT CASE; THE AFFIDAVIT, FOR SEVERAL REASONS, DID NOT RISE TO THE LEVEL OF PROOF REQUIRED TO WARRANT SUMMARY JUDGMENT (THIRD 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

ARBITRATOR’S INTERIM DECISION RE PETITIONER’S SUSPENSION WITHOUT... MOTION TO AMEND THE BILL OF PARTICULARS TO ADD A NEW THEORY OF LIABILITY WHICH...