You are here: / / DEFENDANTS DID NOT SUBMIT THEIR CERTIFICATE OF INCORPORATION AND THE PRINTOUT...
,

DEFENDANTS DID NOT SUBMIT THEIR CERTIFICATE OF INCORPORATION AND THE PRINTOUT FROM THE DEPARTMENT OF STATE WAS NOT IN ADMISSIBLE FORM; DEFENDANTS’ MOTION TO CHANGE VENUE SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined defendants’ motion to change venue was not supported by admissible evidence and should have been denied:

“To effect a change of venue pursuant to CPLR 510(1), a defendant must show that the plaintiff’s choice of venue is improper and that its choice of venue is proper” … . To succeed on their motion here, the defendants were obligated to demonstrate that, on the date that this action was commenced, neither of the parties resided in Kings County … . Only if the defendants made such a showing were the plaintiffs required to establish, in opposition, via documentary evidence, that the venue they selected was proper … .

Here, the defendants failed to submit their certificate of incorporation. Contrary to the defendants’ contention, the computer printout they submitted in support of their motion from the website of the New York State Department of State, Division of Corporations was inadmissible, since it was not certified or authenticated, and it was not supported by a factual foundation sufficient to demonstrate its admissibility as a business record … . Therefore, the defendants failed to meet their initial burden of demonstrating that their principal office was located in Nassau County and that the plaintiffs’ choice of venue in Kings County was improper … . O.K. v Y.M. & Y.W.H.A. of Williamsburg, Inc., 2019 NY Slip Op 06156, Second Dept 8-21-19

 

You might also like
Requirements for Prima Facie Case Based Upon Circumstantial Evidence Explained (Re: Existence of Hazardous Condition)
SUPREME COURT SHOULD NOT HAVE CONFIRMED THE REFEREE’S REPORT; THE REPORT WAS BASED UPON BUSINESS RECORDS WHIDH WERE NOT PRODUCED OR IDENTIFIED (SECOND DEPT).
GENERALLY A HOMEOWNER WHO DOES NOT DIRECT THE WORK ON THE HOME CANNOT BE HELD LIABLE FOR A LADDER-FALL PURSUANT TO LABOR LAW 240(1); BUT THE HOMEOWNER’S EXEMPTION DOES NOT APPLY WHEN THE WORK IS RELATED TO A COMMERCIAL PURPOSE; HERE THERE WERE QUESTIONS OF FACT WHETHER THE PROPERTY WAS TO BE USED FOR COMMERCIAL PURPOSES (SECOND DEPT).
Zoning Board’s Determination Lacked a Rational Basis
SUPREME COURT SHOULD NOT HAVE MODIFIED A SO-ORDERED STIPULATION ENTERED BETWEEN LANDLORD AND TENANT REQUIRING MONTHLY USE AND OCCUPANCY PAYMENTS OF OVER $100,000 DURING THE COURT PROCEEDINGS STEMMING FROM THE LANDLORD’S NOTICE OF TERMINATION OF THE LEASE, SUPREME COURT IMPROPERLY REDUCED THE MONTHLY PAYMENTS TO ZERO BASED UPON THE VALUE OF THE PROPERTY TO THE TENANT WHICH WAS ALLEGED TO HAVE BEEN RENDERED WORTHLESS BY THE NOTICE OF TERMINATION, AS OPPOSED TO THE FAIR MARKET RENTAL VALUE OF THE PROPERTY FROM THE LANDLORD’S PERSPECTIVE (SECOND DEPT).
PETITIONER PREVAILED IN THE FOIL PROCEEDING AND WAS THEREFORE ENTITLED TO ATTORNEY’S FEES; HOWEVER, PETITIONER WAS NOT ENTITLED TO LEGAL COSTS INCURRED IN PROSECUTING THE PETITIONER’S CLAIM FOR ATTORNEY’S FEES, SO-CALLED “FEES ON FEES” (SECOND DEPT).
LANDLORD’S RIGHT TO ENTER TO MAKE REPAIRS DOES NOT CREATE A DUTY TO MAKE REPAIRS.
THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN PETITIONER AND RESPONDENT IN THIS FAMILY OFFENSE PROCEEDING MET THE DEFINITION OF “INTIMATE RELATIONSHIP” SUCH THAT FAMILY COURT HAD SUBJECT MATTER JURISDICTION (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 © 2026 New York Appellate Digest, Inc.
Site by CurlyHost | Privacy Policy

FAILURE TO PAY TAXES UNDER PROTEST PRECLUDES AN ACTION TO RECOVER THE PAYMENTS... QUESTIONS OF FACT WHETHER THE “LAUNCH AN INSTRUMENT OF HARM” ESPINAL...