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
IN THIS FORECLOSURE DEFICIENCY-JUDGMENT CASE, THE FAIR VALUE OF THE PROPERTY WAS CONSIDERABLY HIGHER THAN THE LIQUIDATION VALUE USED BY THE COURT TO CALCULATE THE DEFICIENCY JUDGMENT (SECOND DEPT).
THE MOTION TO AMEND THE COMPLAINT TO CORRECT A TYPO SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED (LABOR LAW 241 AND 241(B) RATHER THAN 240(1)); SUMMARY JUDGMENT CAN BE GRANTED ON AN UNPLEADED CAUSE OF ACTION; HERE THERE WAS A QUESTION OF FACT WHETHER THE FOUR-INCH ELEVATION DIFFERENTIAL WAS DE MINIMIS (SECOND DEPT).
TAKING A LEAVE OF ABSENCE FROM A POSITION ON THE COUNTY BOARD OF ELECTIONS TO RUN FOR STATE SENATE IS NOT THE EQUIVALENT OF RESIGNING FROM THE BOARD OF ELECTIONS, WHICH IS REQUIRED BY THE ELECTION LAW; THE DESIGNATING PETITION SHOULD HAVE BEEN INVALIDATED (SECOND DEPT). ​
Transit Authority Not Liable Under the Emergency Doctrine As a Matter of Law
PLAINTIFF OFFERED DIFFERENT EXPLANATIONS OF THE CAUSE OF HIS FALL, COURT HELD PLAINTIFF COULD NOT IDENTIFY THE CAUSE OF HIS FALL, REQUIRING DISMISSAL (SECOND DEPT).
PLAINTIFF IN THIS MEDICAL MALPRACTICE ACTION SOUGHT TO ADD TWO PHYSICIAN’S ASSISTANTS (PA’S) AS DEFENDANTS AFTER THE STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS HAD RUN; PLAINTIFF DID NOT DEMONSTRATE THE DEFENDANT DOCTORS WERE THE PA’S EMPLOYERS OR SUPERVISORS; PLAINTIFF DID NOT DEMONSTRATE THE PA’S HAD TIMELY KNOWLEDGE OF THE ACTION; THEREFORE THE RELATION-BACK DOCTRINE SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN APPLIED (SECOND DEPT). ​
Child’s Move To Connecticut Did Not Strip New York of Jurisdiction and Did Not Justify Finding that New York Was an Inconvenient Forum
FAMILY COURT SHOULD HAVE APPOINTED PETITIONER GUARDIAN OF THE CHILD AND SHOULD HAVE MADE THE FINDINGS NECESSARY TO ALLOW THE CHILD TO PETITION FOR SPECIAL IMMIGRANT JUVENILE STATUS (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

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