You are here: / / MOTION FOR A CHANGE OF VENUE ON DISCRETIONARY GROUNDS WAS MADE IN THE WRONG...
,

MOTION FOR A CHANGE OF VENUE ON DISCRETIONARY GROUNDS WAS MADE IN THE WRONG COUNTY, ISSUE PROPERLY HEARD ON APPEAL ALTHOUGH NOT RAISED BELOW (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined the motion for a change of venue on discretionary grounds was not brought in the correct county and should not have been granted. The issue was properly before the appellate court despite not having been raised below:

It is undisputed that, pursuant to CPLR 503(a), venue of the Ulster County Action is properly in Ulster County, where Bacci, one of the Ulster plaintiffs, resided at the time the action was commenced … . A motion to change venue on discretionary grounds, unlike motions made as of right, 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 (see CPLR 2212[a]…). The Fenstermen parties, therefore, were required to make a motion pursuant to CPLR 510(3) either in Ulster County, where the Ulster County Action was pending, in another county in the 3rd Judicial District, or in a county contiguous to Ulster County (see CPLR 2212[a] …). Since Ulster County and Nassau County are not contiguous, and Nassau County is not in the 3rd Judicial District, the Fensterman parties’ motion to change venue pursuant to CPLR 510(3) based on discretionary grounds was improperly made in the Supreme Court, Nassau County … . Although not argued by the parties in the Supreme Court, Nassau County, but argued on appeal, we reach this issue in the exercise of our discretion because it appears on the face of the record and could not have been avoided or explained if raised in the Supreme Court … . Fensterman v Joseph, 2018 NY Slip Op 04532, Second Dept 6-20-18

​CIVIL PROCEDURE (MOTION FOR A CHANGE OF VENUE ON DISCRETIONARY GROUNDS WAS MADE IN THE WRONG COUNTY, ISSUE PROPERLY HEARD ON APPEAL ALTHOUGH NOT RAISED BELOW (SECOND DEPT))/CPLR 503 (MOTION FOR A CHANGE OF VENUE ON DISCRETIONARY GROUNDS WAS MADE IN THE WRONG COUNTY, ISSUE PROPERLY HEARD ON APPEAL ALTHOUGH NOT RAISED BELOW (SECOND DEPT))/CPLR 2212  (MOTION FOR A CHANGE OF VENUE ON DISCRETIONARY GROUNDS WAS MADE IN THE WRONG COUNTY, ISSUE PROPERLY HEARD ON APPEAL ALTHOUGH NOT RAISED BELOW (SECOND DEPT))/VENUE  (MOTION FOR A CHANGE OF VENUE ON DISCRETIONARY GROUNDS WAS MADE IN THE WRONG COUNTY, ISSUE PROPERLY HEARD ON APPEAL ALTHOUGH NOT RAISED BELOW (SECOND DEPT))/APPEALS (CIVIL PROCEDURE, VENUE, MOTION FOR A CHANGE OF VENUE ON DISCRETIONARY GROUNDS WAS MADE IN THE WRONG COUNTY, ISSUE PROPERLY HEARD ON APPEAL ALTHOUGH NOT RAISED BELOW (SECOND DEPT))

You might also like
To Be Entitled to Summary Judgment on a Labor Law 200 Cause of Action, the Defendant Must Demonstrate the Defendant (1) Did Not Control the Plaintiff’s Work and (2) Did Not Create or Have Constructive Knowledge of the Dangerous Condition
TEACHER’S PETITION TO REVIEW DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION’S JOB PERFORMANCE RATING SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN DISMISSED FOR FAILURE TO STATE A CAUSE OF ACTION, CRITERIA EXPLAINED.
NO APPEAL LIES FROM THE DENIAL OF A MOTION TO WITHDRAW A PLEA OF NOT RESPONSIBLE BY REASON OF MENTAL DISEASE OR DEFECT (SECOND DEPT).
THE RECORD DID NOT SUPPORT THE FINDING THAT FATHER, DUE TO UNTREATED MENTAL ILLNESS, NEGLECTED ONE CHILD AND DERIVATIVELY NEGLECTED THE OTHER CHILDREN; THE CRITERIA FOR A NEGLECT FINDING IN THIS CONTEXT ARE LAID OUT IN DETAIL (SECOND DEPT).
MOTION TO AMEND THE BILL OF PARTICULARS MADE AFTER THE NOTE OF ISSUE WAS FILED SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED DESPITE THE ABSENCE OF A GOOD EXCUSE FOR THE DELAY; THE MOTION HAD MERIT, DID NOT PRESENT ANY NEW THEORIES AND SOUGHT TO NARROW THE ISSUES FOR TRIAL (SECOND DEPT).
ANY CONDUCT ON THE PART OF THE INSURER WAS NOT THE PROXIMATE CAUSE OF PLAINTIFF’S CLOSING OF ITS BUSINESS AFTER INCURRING WATER DAMAGE, THEREFORE THE INSURER WAS NOT LIABLE FOR THE LOSS OF BUSINESS CONSEQUENTIAL DAMAGES (SECOND DEPT).
Defendant Homeowner Demonstrated She Did Not Have Actual or Constructive Notice of the Dangerous Condition and Did Not Create the Dangerous Condition (Deck Collapsed When Plaintiff Was Inspecting the Property Prior to Beginning Work)
DEFENDANT DOCTORS’ MOTIONS FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT IN THIS MEDICAL MALPRACTICE ACTION SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED; ONE DOCTOR DID NOT DEMONSTRATE HE DID NOT PARTICIPATE IN THE RESUSCITATION OF THE NEWBORN; THERE WAS A QUESTION OF FACT WHETHER A SECOND DOCTOR EMPLOYED THE PROPER RESUSCITATION METHOD (SECOND 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 © 2025 New York Appellate Digest, Inc.
Site by CurlyHost | Privacy Policy

GENERAL CONTRACTOR DID NOT EXERCISE SUFFICIENT SUPERVISORY CONTROL OVER PLAINTIFF’S... CONTINUING WRONG DOCTRINE TOLLED THE STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS IN THIS BREACH OF...