You are here: / / VENUE WAS IMPROPER; DEFENDANTS FOLLOWED THE STATUTORY PROCEDURE AND MOVED...

VENUE WAS IMPROPER; DEFENDANTS FOLLOWED THE STATUTORY PROCEDURE AND MOVED FOR A CHANGE OF VENUE; NO OTHER PARTY MOVED FOR A CHANGE OF VENUE; THE MOTION SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined the defendants’ (Transit Authorities’) motion to change venue should have been granted. Venue was improper, the Transit Authorities followed the correct procedure, and no other party made a motion to change venue:

After plaintiffs commenced this action in Bronx County, the Transit Authorities timely served a demand for a change of venue as of right to New York County, where one of them has its principal office (see CPLR 505[a]; 511). Plaintiffs did not respond to the demand, and the Transit Authorities timely moved to change venue (see CPLR 510[1]; 511[b]). In opposition to the motion, plaintiffs did not dispute that their choice of venue was improper, but requested that venue be placed in Kings County, where the accident occurred. No other defendant timely appeared in opposition to the motion, although the City defendants submitted a belated affirmation asserting that venue should be placed in Kings County under CPLR 504(3).

By failing to respond to the Transit Authorities’ demand to change venue to a proper forum, plaintiffs forfeited their right to select venue … . Further, no party moved to transfer venue to an alternate county … . Thus, once the Transit Authorities had followed the procedure set forth in CPLR 511 and established that the county chosen by plaintiffs was improper, their motion to change venue to New York County as of right should have been granted … . Richardson v City of New York, 2020 NY Slip Op 03281, First Dept 6-11-20

 

You might also like
PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT IN THIS PEDESTRIAN-VEHICLE ACCIDENT CASE WAS PREMATURE; PLAINTIFF HAD NOT YET BEEN DEPOSED (FIRST DEPT).
Elements of Causes of Action for (1) Misappropriation of (a) Trade Secrets, (b) Business Ideas, and (c) Labor, Skills and Expenditures, (2) Breach of Fiduciary Duty (Delaware Law), (3) Aiding and Abetting Breach of Fiduciary Duty (Delaware Law), (4) Unjust Enrichment, and (5) Promissory Estoppel Described in Some Detail
CELL PHONE COMPANY WITNESS WAS NOT AN ENGINEER AND SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN ALLOWED TO TESTIFY AS AN EXPERT ABOUT HOW FAR DEFENDANT’S PHONE WAS FROM THE TOWER, POLICE OFFICER SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN ALLOWED TO TESTIFY ABOUT THE VICTIM’S IDENTIFICATION OF THE DEFENDANT, JUDGE SHOULD NOT HAVE MARSHALED THE EVIDENCE TO FAVOR THE PROSECUTION, THESE ERRORS, AS WELL AS ADDITIONAL JUDICIAL ERRORS, CUMULATIVELY DEPRIVED DEFENDANT OF A FAIR TRIAL (FIRST DEPT).
THE TRIAL JUDGE COMPLETELY BYPASSED THE BATSON PROCEDURE WHEN DEFENSE COUNSEL OBJECTED TO THE PEOPLE’S PEREMPTORY CHALLENGES TO FOUR JURORS; ALTHOUGH THE JURORS HAD BEEN EXCUSED, THE BATSON OBJECTION WAS TIMELY; ALTHOUGH THE ERROR WAS NOT PRESERVED, THE APPEAL WAS CONSIDERED IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE; CONVICTION HELD IN ABEYANCE AND MATTER REMITTED; TWO JUSTICE DISSENT (FIRST DEPT).
DEED MADE UNDER FALSE PRETENSES IS VOID AB INITIO RENDERING THE RELATED MORTGAGE INVALID; THE LAW OF THE CASE DOCTRINE DOES NOT PRECLUDE RECONSIDERING A MATTER WHERE THERE IS NEW EVIDENCE (FIRST DEPT).
Affidavit Supporting Motion to Strike Did Not Demonstrate Good Faith Effort to Resolve Issue with Opposing Counsel
DEFENDANTS’ MOTIONS FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN DISMISSED FOR FAILURE TO MEET 60-DAY DEADLINE IMPOSED BY A LOCAL COURT RULE, QUESTION OF FACT WHETHER THE CONTINUOUS TREATMENT DOCTRINE TOLLED THE STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS, LACK OF INFORMED CONSENT DOES NOT APPLY TO FAILURE TO DIAGNOSE (FIRST DEPT).
WHERE (1) THE DISPUTE IS ABOUT WHETHER THE TENANT IS OBLIGATED TO REMOVE PROPERTY FROM THE PREMISES, (2) THE TENANT TIMELY SURRENDERS THE PREMISES, AND (3), THE LEASE IS SILENT ABOUT THE PAYMENT OF RENT AFTER THE TERM OF THE LEASE, USE AND OCCUPANCY DAMAGES ARE NOT AVAILABLE TO THE LANDLORD (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

PLAINTIFF SHOULD HAVE BEEN AWARDED SUMMARY JUDGMENT ON LABOR LAW 240 (1), LABOR... EVEN THOUGH THE US SUPREME COURT CASE REQUIRING WARRANTS FOR CELL SITE LOCATION...