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
IN THIS NO-FAULT INSURANCE MATTER, PLAINTIFF INSURER DID NOT DEMONSTRATE COMPLIANCE WITH THE NYCRR SUCH THAT IT WAS ENTITLED TO SUMMARY JUDGMENT BASED UPON THE INSURED’S FAILURE TO APPEAR FOR AN INDEPENDENT MEDICAL EXAMINATION (FIRST DEPT).
Evidence Supported Conviction of Police Officer for Divulging an Eavesdropping Warrant
QUESTIONS OF FACT WHETHER PEBBLE-SIZED DEBRIS WHICH FELL ON PLAINTIFF AND ALLEGEDLY SERIOUSLY INJURED HIS EYE GAVE RISE TO LIABILITY UNDER LABOR LAW 240(1) AND 241(6) (FIRST DEPT).
IT WAS REVERSIBLE ERROR TO ADMIT A WITNESS’S GRAND JURY TESTIMONY, THE WITNESS’S CLAIM HE COULD NOT REMEMBER THE EVENTS WAS NOT SO DAMAGING TO THE PEOPLE’S CASE AS TO ALLOW THE GRAND JURY EVIDENCE FOR IMPEACHMENT PURPOSES (FIRST DEPT).
Release Did Not Exclude Liability for Personal Trainer’s Negligence
Mandamus to Compel Proceedings Properly Sought to Compel the NYC Housing Authority to Consider Requests for Increases in “Section 8” Rent Subsidies (A Ministerial Act), But a Particular Result Could Not Be Compelled (Because Exercise of Discretion Involved)
QUESTION OF FACT WHETHER THE DOCTRINE OF RES IPSA LOQUITUR APPLIES IN THIS MEDICAL MALPRACTICE CASE; QUESTION OF FACT WHETHER THE MEDICAL CENTER IS LIABLE UNDER THE OSTENSIBLE AGENCY DOCTRINE (FIRST DEPT).
DEFENDANT WAS NOT ADEQUATELY INFORMED ABOUT HIS SENTENCING EXPOSURE, THE NATURE OF THE CHARGES AND THE RISKS OF REPRESENTING HIMSELF; NEW TRIAL ORDERED (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 © 2026 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...