You are here: / / THE PHRASE ‘WITHIN FIVE DAYS’ IN CPLR 511, A CHANGE OF VENUE...

THE PHRASE ‘WITHIN FIVE DAYS’ IN CPLR 511, A CHANGE OF VENUE STATUTE, DOES NOT IMPOSE A WAITING PERIOD FOR A MOTION TO CHANGE VENUE, THE MOTION MAY BE MADE WITHIN THE FIVE DAYS (THIRD DEPT), ​

The Third Department, over a partial dissent, determined that the phrase “within five days” in a change of venue statute (CPLR 511) did not impose a five day waiting period:

Asserting that Ulster County was an improper venue for the proceeding, the Steeles served a timely written demand that the proceeding be tried in Oswego County (see CPLR 511 [b]). Four days later, the Steeles moved, in Ulster County, to change venue of the proceeding to Oswego County. The Aarons argue that the Steeles, by failing to wait five days after their demand to allow the Aarons an opportunity to provide a written consent to change venue, failed to comply with the statutory procedure and thereby were not entitled to a change of venue as of right. This argument is based on an interpretation that the language “unless within five days” places a hold on the defendant’s obligation to make a motion, during which time the defendant must simply wait for the plaintiff to respond to the demand (CPLR 511 [b]). We disagree with that interpretation of the statute.

The Aarons’ argument appears to focus exclusively on the phrase “unless within five days.” However, a plaintiff can choose not to respond to the demand, so the defendant may be sitting and waiting for nothing. In our view, the five-day window is a time limit on the plaintiff only, and the defendant is not required to refrain from doing anything during that period. Instead, the limits placed on a defendant under CPLR 511 (b) — other than the 15-day limit to move for change of venue — are contingent on whatever response the plaintiff may provide, rather than a five-day time period. While the five days are a limit on the plaintiff’s ability to respond to the demand, the defendant retains the ability to make the venue motion “unless . . . [the] plaintiff serves a written consent” agreeing to the venue selected by the defendant (CPLR 511 [b]). In other words, the important occurrence for the defendant is the plaintiff granting consent, not the passage of days. If the plaintiff consents to the demanded change in venue, the defendant may not move for such relief. In a situation where the defendant made a motion before the end of the plaintiff’s five-day response window and the plaintiff thereafter consented, the defendant would have to withdraw the motion (which would be unnecessary at that point anyway). Matter of Aaron v Steele, 2018 NY Slip Op 07393, Third Dept 11-1-18

CIVIL PROCEDURE (VENUE, THE PHRASE ‘WITHIN FIVE DAYS’ IN CPLR 511, A CHANGE OF VENUE STATUTE, DOES NOT IMPOSE A WAITING PERIOD FOR A MOTION TO CHANGE VENUE, THE MOTION MAY BE MADE WITHIN THE FIVE DAYS (THIRD DEPT))/CPLR 511 (VENUE, THE PHRASE ‘WITHIN FIVE DAYS’ IN CPLR 511, A CHANGE OF VENUE STATUTE, DOES NOT IMPOSE A WAITING PERIOD FOR A MOTION TO CHANGE VENUE, THE MOTION MAY BE MADE WITHIN THE FIVE DAYS (THIRD DEPT))/VENUE (THE PHRASE ‘WITHIN FIVE DAYS’ IN CPLR 511, A CHANGE OF VENUE STATUTE, DOES NOT IMPOSE A WAITING PERIOD FOR A MOTION TO CHANGE VENUE, THE MOTION MAY BE MADE WITHIN THE FIVE DAYS (THIRD DEPT))

You might also like
THE JUDGE MADE NO FINDINGS TO SUPPORT EMPANELING AN ANONYMOUS JURY; NEW TRIAL ORDERED (THIRD DEPT).
THE DIFFERENT PURPOSES OF THE TERMS “LOSS OF WAGE-EARNING CAPACITY” AND “WAGE-EARNING CAPACITY” EXPLAINED.
EVEN IF THE CONTRACT BETWEEN THE INSURER AND CLAIMANT INSURANCE BROKER INCLUDED ALL THE STATUTORY FACTORS IN LABOR LAW 511, THE BROKER WILL BE CONSIDERED AN EMPLOYEE IF THE SERVICES ACTUALLY PROVIDED BY THE BROKER ARE NOT CONSISTENT WITH THE CONTRACT PROVISIONS (THIRD DEPT).
ATTEMPTS TO DE-ACCELERATE THE DEBT, INCLUDING VOLUNTARY DISCONTINUANCES AFTER THE DEATH OF THE DEFENDANT, WERE INEFFECTUAL, THE FORECLOSURE ACTION IS TIME-BARRED (THIRD DEPT).
THE CLAIM OF SEXUAL ABUSE UNDER THE CHILD VICTIMS ACT MET THE PLEADING CRITERIA OF THE COURT OF CLAIMS ACT; THE FOUR-YEAR TIME FRAME WAS SUFFICIENTLY PRECISE; THE FACTS ALLEGED SUFFICIENTLY STATED THE NATURE OF THE DEFENDANT’S NEGLIGENCE (THIRD DEPT).
ABSENT A FINDING OF PERMANENT PARTIAL DISABILITY, CLAIMANT NEED NOT SHOW ATTACHMENT TO THE LABOR MARKET AND IS ENTITLED TO RELY ON HER CHIROPRACTOR’S OPINION SHE IS TEMPORARILY TOTALLY DISABLED (THIRD DEPT).
EVIDENCE PROPERLY ADMITTED AT TRIAL PURSUANT TO THE CRIME-FRAUD EXCEPTION TO THE ATTORNEY-CLIENT PRIVILEGE, THE SEARCH WARRANT WAS EXECUTED AT AND THE EVIDENCE WAS SEIZED FROM THE SARATOGA COUNTY PUBLIC DEFENDER’S OFFICE (THIRD DEPT).
TOWN BOARD’S DENIAL OF A SPECIAL USE PERMIT ALLOWING THE BLASTING AND REMOVAL OF ROCK WAS NOT ARBITRARY OR CAPRICIOUS DESPITE THE TOWN’S IMPROPER CONSIDERATION OF INFORMATION GATHERED OUTSIDE THE STATE ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY REVIEW ACT PROCESS, THE TOWN’S RULING WAS SUPPORTED BY THE LOCAL LAW CRITERIA FOR ISSUANCE OF A SPECIAL USE PERMIT (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

STACKED SHEETROCK DID NOT PRESENT AN ELEVATION RELATED HAZARD AND DID NOT BLOCK... PLAINTIFF WAS ENTITLED TO SUMMARY JUDGMENT ON HIS LABOR LAW 240 (1) CAUSE OF...