You are here: / / EVEN THOUGH THE DEFENDANT CORPORATION DID NOT HAVE AN OFFICE IN NEW YORK...
, ,

EVEN THOUGH THE DEFENDANT CORPORATION DID NOT HAVE AN OFFICE IN NEW YORK COUNTY AND THE TRAFFIC ACCIDENT OCCURRED IN NASSAU COUNTY WHERE THE CORPORATION DID HAVE AN OFFICE, VENUE WAS APPROPRIATELY PLACED IN NEW YORK COUNTY BASED ON DEFENDANT’S CERTIFICATE OF INCORPORATION (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined the defendants’ motion to change venue in this traffic accident case should not have been granted. Even though the accident didn’t occur in New York County and defendant corporation did not have an office in New York County, the certificate of incorporation designated New York County as the location of its principal office and the certificate controls:

Plaintiff properly placed venue in New York County based upon the corporate defendant’s initial certificate of incorporation designating New York County as the location of its principal office although the company has no office there (see CPLR 503 [c] …).

While defendants annexed to their moving papers the police report for the subject motor vehicle accident indicating that defendants’ vehicle was registered to a Nassau County address on the day of the accident and an affidavit from the corporate defendant’s Vice President averring that its office was in Nassau County when the action was commenced, the corporate residence designated in the initial certificate of incorporation controls for venue purposes … . There was no evidence of an amended certificate of incorporation that changed the principal place of business to Nassau County.

The general rule is that a transitory action, such as the subject motor vehicle accident, when other things are equal, should be tried in the county where the cause of action arose … . This rule, however, is predicated on the convenience of material nonparty witnesses who are to be present at trial … . While the situs of the accident provides a basis to change venue to Nassau County, defendants failed to sustain their burden, as the party moving for a discretionary change of venue pursuant to CPLR 510 (3), that there are material witnesses who would be inconvenienced by a trial in New York County … . Marte v Lampert, 2023 NY Slip Op 00375, First Dept 1-26-23

Practice Point: Here the traffic accident happened in Nassau County where defendant corporation had an office. But defendant’s certificate of incorporation indicated defendant’s principal office was in New York County. The certificate controls, even though the defendant corporation did not actually have an office in New York County.

 

You might also like
PLAINTIFF FELL FROM A SCAFFOLD WHICH HAD NO RAILINGS, PLAINTIFF DID NOT NEED TO DEMONSTRATE THE SCAFFOLD WAS DEFECTIVE, PLAINTIFF PROPERLY GRANTED SUMMARY JUDGMENT ON THE LABOR LAW 240 (1) CAUSE OF ACTION (FIRST DEPT).
PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT IN THIS COMPLEX BREACH OF CONTRACT ACTION INVOLVING THE SALE OF A BUSINESS AND A RELATED LEASE WAS PROPERLY GRANTED; THE TERMS OF THE CONTRACTS WERE UNAMBIGUOUS AND NEITHER THE DOCTRINE OF PREVENTION NOR THE DOCTRINE OF FRUSTRATION OF PURPOSE APPLIED (FIRST DEPT).
PLAINTIFFS’ CONCLUSORY ALLEGATIONS OF AN AGENCY RELATIONSHIP INSUFFICIENT TO DEMONSTRATE A BASIS FOR LONG-ARM JURISDICTION, MOTION TO DISMISS PROPERLY GRANTED.
DISCOVERY OF DEFENDANT’S SOURCE CODE, A TRADE SECRET, SHOULD HAVE BEEN ORDERED FOR “ATTORNEYS AND EXPERT EYES ONLY” (FIRST DEPT).
PURSUANT TO THE SPECIAL FACTS DOCTRINE, THE PURCHASE AND SALE AGREEMENT FOR THIS “AS IS” SALE OF A BUILDING RELEASED THE SELLER FROM LIABILIITY FOR NEGLIGENCE AND NEGLIGENT MISREPRESENTATION, BUT NOT FOR FRAUD (FIRST DEPT). ​
AN UNFAVORABLE ANONYMOUS GOOGLE REVIEW OF PLAINTIFF ORTHODONTIST, ALTHOUGH IT INCLUDED BOTH FACT AND OPINION, WOULD BE UNDERSTOOD BY A READER TO BE PURE OPINION; THE REVIEW IS NOT ACTIONABLE DEFAMATION (FIRST DEPT). ​
FALL THOUGH AN UNGUARDED FLOOR OPENING AT A CONSTRUCTION SITE IS COVERED UNDER LABOR LAW 240 (1), THERE WAS A QUESTION OF FACT WHETHER PLAINTIFF WAS ABLE TO TIE OFF HIS HARNESS, PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED (FIRST DEPT).
THE DEFENDANT ARGUED A 2022 US SUPREME COURT RULING FINDING NEW YORK’S FIREARM LICENSING REQUIREMENT UNCONSITUTIONAL RENDERED THE POSSESSION-OF-A-WEAPON STATUTE TO WHICH HE PLED GUILTY IN 2016 UNCONSTITUTIONAL; THE ISSUE WAS NOT PRESERVED BECAUSE IT WAS NOT RAISED IN THE TRIAL COURT IN 2016 (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 © 2025 New York Appellate Digest, Inc.
Site by CurlyHost | Privacy Policy

A HEAVY DOOR FELL ON PLAINTIFF’S HAND AS HE AND A CO-WORKER ATTEMPTED... PETITIONER POLICE OFFICER FELL TWICE AT NIGHT WHILE INVESTIGATING SUSPICIOUS...