You are here: / / THE MOTION TO CHANGE VENUE WAS MADE MORE THAN 15 DAYS AFTER THE DEMAND...

THE MOTION TO CHANGE VENUE WAS MADE MORE THAN 15 DAYS AFTER THE DEMAND TO CHANGE VENUE; THE 15-DAY TIME-LIMIT IS STRICTLY ENFORCED AND THE MOTION SHOULD HAVE BEEN DENIED (FIRST DEPT). ​

The First Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined the defendants’ motion to change venue pursuant to CPLR 511(b) was made more than 15 days after their demand to change venue and was therefore untimely:

Supreme Court should have denied defendants’ motion to change venue from Bronx County to Westchester County because it was untimely made. Defendants have a reasonable excuse for their failure to make a timely demand to change venue. They learned of plaintiff’s Westchester address on April 5, 2022, when they received plaintiff’s medical authorizations and a copy of the Aided report, and made a prompt demand to change venue the day after, on April 6, 2022 … . However, pursuant to CPLR 511(b), defendants had until April 21, 2022, 15 days after service of their demand, to make the motion. Defendants’ motion made on April 26, 2022, 20 days after the demand, is untimely and should have been denied. Defendant did not move within the strict time limits provided by the statute and failed to offer any explanation for the delay … . Gomez v Cypser, 2023 NY Slip Op 01060, First Dept 2-28-23

Practice Point: Once defendant makes a demand to change venue, defendant has 15 days to make a motion to change venue pursuant to CPLR 511(b). The 15-day time-limit is strictly enforced. Here the motion was made 20 days after the demand and Supreme Court should not have granted it.

 

You might also like
PLAINTIFF’S HOSTILE WORK ENVIRONMENT CAUSE OF ACTION SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN DISMISSED (FIRST DEPT).
AN ACCOUNT-STATED ACTION IS NOT DUPLICATIVE OF A BREACH-OF-CONTRACT ACTION; HERE PLAINTIFF DIVORCE ATTORNEYS PROPERLY SOUGHT PAYMENT UNDER BOTH ACCOUNT-STATED AND BREACH-OF-RETAINER-AGREEMENT THEORIES AND THE COURT PROPERLY AWARDED SUMMARY JUDGMENT ON THE ACCOUNT-STATED CAUSE OF ACTION (FIRST DEPT).
PROPERTY OWNER DID NOT DEMONSTRATE A LACK OF CONSTRUCTIVE KNOWLEDGE OF THE SNOW AND ICE CONDITION IN THIS SLIP AND FALL CASE, AND THE SNOW REMOVAL CONTRACTOR DID NOT OFFER ANY EVIDENCE OF THE STATE OF THE AREA WHERE PLAINTIFF FELL, DEFENDANTS’ SUMMARY JUDGMENT MOTIONS SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED (FIRST DEPT).
Sheetrock Resting on Blocks Satisfied Height Differential in Labor Law 240(1) Action
Further Proceedings Are Stayed When Counsel’s Motion to Withdraw Is Granted
City Was “United in Interest” with Non-Profit Corporation Which Maintained Central Park Pursuant to a Contract with the City—Therefore Plaintiff, Who Was Allegedly Injured by a Truck Owned by the Non-Profit Corporation, Could Amend His Complaint to Include the Non-Profit Corporation After the Statute of Limitations Had Run—However the Extent to Which the City Was “United in Interest” Was Dictated by the Terms of the Contract
LANDOWNERS DID NOT HAVE A DUTY TO PROVIDE SECURITY IN PUBLIC VESTIBULE OF THEIR BUILDING WHERE PLAINTIFF’S DECEDENT WAS SHOT (FIRST DEPT).
VENTILATOR FROM WHICH PLAINTIFF FELL WAS NOT A SAFETY DEVICE, HOWEVER THE FACT THAT PLAINTIFF COULD NOT REACH THE VENTILATOR FROM THE LADDER ENTITLED HIM TO SUMMARY JUDGMENT ON THE LABOR LAW 240 (1) CAUSE OF ACTION, A VIOLATION OF LABOR LAW 240 (1) IS NOT A FINDING OF NEGLIGENCE, LANDLORD ENTITLED TO INDEMNIFICATION UNDER THE LEASE TERMS (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

AFFIDAVITS NOT BASED ON PERSONAL KNOWLEDGE AND NOT SUPPORTED BY CERTIFIED BUSINESS... CONCLUSORY AND SPECULATIVE ALLEGATIONS PLAINTIFF WOULD NOT HAVE LOST ITS DISADVANTAGED...