You are here: / / WHEN A PARTY BRINGS A MOTION TO CHANGE VENUE IN THE COUNTY TO WHICH THE...

WHEN A PARTY BRINGS A MOTION TO CHANGE VENUE IN THE COUNTY TO WHICH THE PARTY WANTS VENUE CHANGED, AS OPPOSED TO THE COUNTY WHERE THE ACTION WAS STARTED, THE PARTY MUST USE THE SPECIAL PROCEDURE IN CPLR 511 (A) AND (B), WHICH REQUIRES MAKING A DEMAND ON THE OTHER PARTY BEFORE BRINGING A MOTION; HERE THE SPECIAL PROCEDURE WAS NOT USED, THE MOTION TO CHANGE VENUE WAS MADE IN THE “WRONG COUNTY” AND SHOULD HAVE BEEN DISMISSED (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined the defendant nursing home’s motion to change venue should have been denied. Unless a party follows the special procedure in CPLR 511(a) and (b), which requires making a demand on the other party before bringing a motion, a motion to change venue must be brought in the county where the action was started. Here the defendant did not use the special procedure and brought the motion to change venue in the county where defendant sought to move the proceedings. That was the wrong county for the motion:

This Court has stated that “[w]here . . . a motion to change venue . . . is made in the ‘wrong county’ and timely objection is raised to the improper venue of the motion itself, Special Term should deny the motion” … . Contrary to the defendant’s contention, neither CPLR 501 nor CPLR 511(b) provided a basis for it to notice the motion in Nassau County. Allen v Morningside Acquisition I, LLC, 2022 NY Slip Op 03219, Second Dept 5-18-22

Practice Point: Here the party made a motion to change venue in the county to which the party wanted venue changed. That was deemed the “wrong county” and the motion was dismissed because the party did not first use the special procedure in CPLR 511 (a) an (b) which requires making a demand on the other party before bringing the motion.

 

You might also like
IN A REAR-END COLLISION CASE, IN ORDER TO RAISE A QUESTION OF FACT ABOUT WHETHER BRAKE-FAILURE WAS THE CAUSE, THE DEFENDANT MUST DEMONSTRATE THE FAILURE WAS UNANTICIPATED AND REASONABLE CARE WAS TAKEN TO KEEP THE BRAKES IN GOOD WORKING ORDER; NOT THE CASE HERE; PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED (SECOND DEPT).
Defendant Did Not Waive the Statute of Limitations Defense, Pled In Its Answer, by Failing to Assert It in a Pre-Answer Motion to Dismiss—Although Defendant’s Post-Answer Motion Was Ostensibly Brought Pursuant to CPLR 3211 Instead of 3212, the Procedural Irregularity Should Have Been Excused under CPLR 2001
PLAINTIFF ALLEGED HE WAS STRUCK BY A BRICK WHICH RICOCHETED OUT OF A CHUTE USED FOR DUMPING DEBRIS FROM THE UPPER FLOORS OF A BUILDING UNDERGOING DEMOLITION; THE CONTRACTOR’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT ON LABOR LAW 240(1) AND 241(6) CAUSES OF ACTION SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED (SECOND DEPT).
PRINCIPAL OFFICE OF A FOREIGN LIMITED LIABILITY COMPANY, AS LISTED ON THE DEPARTMENT OF STATE APPLICATION FOR AUTHORITY TO CONDUCT BUSINESS, IS THE CONTROLLING LOCATION FOR VENUE PURPOSES.
VEHICLE AND TRAFFIC LAW 1192(2) (DWI) IS A LESSER INCLUDED OFFENSE OF VEHICLE AND TRAFFIC LAW 1192(2-A) (AGGRAVATED DWI) (SECOND DEPT). ​
THE PARTIES MARRIED IN 1974, STARTED DIVORCE PROCEEDINGS IN 1991, DISCONTINUED THE DIVORCE AND BEGAN LIVING TOGETHER AGAIN IN 1998, CONTINUED LIVING TOGETHER UNTIL THE INSTANT DIVORCE IN 2015; SUPREME COURT ERRED IN FINDING THE ECONOMIC PARTNERSHIP ENDED IN 1991; MATTER REMITTED FOR RECALCULATION OF THE MARITAL PROPERTY AND COUNSEL FEES (SECOND DEPT).
LANDLORD (SUBLESSOR) DID NOT OWE A DUTY TO PLAINTIFF’S SUBROGEE TO PREVENT A MENTALLY ILL TENANT FROM SMOKING IN THE APARTMENT WHERE A FIRE STARTED.
ALTHOUGH PLAINTIFF TURNED RIGHT INTO DEFENDANT DRIVER’S PATH AT AN INTERSECTION, DEFENDANT DRIVER DID NOT DEMONSTRATE FREEDOM FROM FAULT AND DEFENDANT TOWN DID NOT DEMONSTRATE FOLIAGE OBSTRUCTING A STOP SIGN DID NOT CONTRIBUTE TO THE ACCIDENT, DEFENDANTS’ MOTIONS FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED (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

​ WHEN THE FAILURE TO PRESENT FACTS IN A PRIOR MOTION IS NOT JUSTIFIED, THE... WHEN A MUTUAL INSURANCE COMPANY WHICH ISSUES PROFESSIONAL LIABILITY POLICES...