You are here: / / THE COUNTY WHERE PLAINTIFF AND DEFENDANT OWNED A SEASONAL SECOND HOME (WHERE...
,

THE COUNTY WHERE PLAINTIFF AND DEFENDANT OWNED A SEASONAL SECOND HOME (WHERE DEFENDANT LIVED AFTER COVID REACHED NEW YORK CITY) WAS NOT THE PROPER VENUE FOR THE DIVORCE ACTION (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, in a full-fledged opinion by Justice Lasalle, reversing Supreme Court, determined the county where plaintiff and defendant owned a seasonal second home, and where defendant moved when COVID reached New York City, was not the proper venue for the divorce action:

The parties to this divorce action primarily resided in New York County, while maintaining a seasonal second home in Suffolk County. In March 2020, when the COVID-19 pandemic first reached New York City, the defendant retreated to the Suffolk County residence along with her pregnant and immunocompromised daughter and began spending more time there in order to assist the daughter during the pregnancy and after the child’s birth. In August 2020, the plaintiff commenced this action for a divorce and ancillary relief in Suffolk County, on the ground that the parties were residents of Suffolk County. The defendant moved pursuant to CPLR 510 and 511 for a change of venue, and the Supreme Court denied the motion.

This case presents the issue of whether sheltering in place in a seasonal home creates a sufficient degree of permanence to establish residency at that location. We hold that it does not under the circumstances of this case. Because the parties’ stays in Suffolk County were only seasonal and temporary, we hold that neither of them were residents of Suffolk County at the time of the commencement of the action. Accordingly, the Supreme Court should have granted the defendant’s motion pursuant to CPLR 510 and 511 to change the venue of the action from Suffolk County to New York County. Fisch v Davidson, 2022 NY Slip Op 01442, Second Dept 3-9-22

Practice Point: In this divorce action commenced in August 2020 (during the pandemic), the county were plaintiff and defendant owned a seasonal home, and where defendant moved when COVID reached New York City, was not the proper venue. New York County, where the couple primarily resided, was deemed the proper venue for the divorce proceedings.

 

You might also like
DEFENDANT WAS NOT INFORMED OF THE DEPORTATION CONSEQUENCES OF HIS PLEA, HE IS ENTITLED TO A HEARING ON HIS MOTION TO VACATE THE JUDGMENT OF CONVICTION (SECOND DEPT).
Four-Month Statute of Limitations for Challenging Termination of a Firefighter Runs from the Effective Date of Termination, Not the Date of Notification
Adverse Possession Criteria Explained
COURT ATTORNEY REFEREE WAS NOT AUTHORIZED TO DETERMINE A CONTESTED FAMILY OFFENSE PETITION OR CUSTODY AND VISITATION ISSUES (SECOND DEPT).
PLAINTIFF, A SCHOOL PSYCHOLOGIST, WAS ASSAULTED BY AN AUTISTIC STUDENT; THE NEGLIGENT-PARENTAL-SUPERVISION CAUSE OF ACTION AGAINST THE STUDENT’S PARENTS SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN DISMISSED (SECOND DEPT).
Purchase of Property Encumbered by an Unsatisfied Mortgage Gave Rise to Negligence, Negligent Misrepresentation, Fraud, and Civil Conspiracy Causes of Action Against Title Insurance Company
CONDEMNEE WAS ENTITLED TO ADDITIONAL ALLOWANCES (ATTORNEY’S FEES AND COSTS) BASED UPON THE DIFFERENCE IN COMPENSATION BETWEEN THAT OFFERED BY THE VILLAGE AND THE AWARD BY THE COURT IN THIS EMINENT DOMAIN PROCEEDING; THE STATUTORY INTEREST RATE OF 6%, NOT 9%, SHOULD HAVE BEEN APPLIED (SECOND DEPT).
ALTHOUGH THE PARTY TWICE FILED FOR BANKRUPTCY WITHOUT LISTING THE MEDICAL MALPRACTICE ACTION AS AN ASSET, THE BANKRUPTCY PROCEEDING WAS SUBSEQUENTLY REOPENED AND THE ACTION WAS ADDED AS AN ASSET; AT THAT POINT THE BANKRUPTCY TRUSTEE BECAME THE PLAINTIFF IN THE MEDICAL MALPRACTICE ACTION AND THE DOCTRINE OF JUDICIAL ESTOPPEL, BASED UPON THE PARTY’S INITIAL FAILURE TO LIST THE ACTION AS AN ASSET, DID NOT APPLY TO THE TRUSTEE (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

THE LOST NOTE AFFIDAVIT SUBMITTED BY THE BANK WAS INSUFFICIENT; THEREFORE THE... THE BANK FAILED TO DEMONSTRATE STANDING TO BRING THE FORECLOSURE ACTION; THERE...