You are here: / / IN THIS TRAFFIC-ACCIDENT CASE, PLAINTIFF BROUGHT THE ACTION IN AN IMPROPER...
,

IN THIS TRAFFIC-ACCIDENT CASE, PLAINTIFF BROUGHT THE ACTION IN AN IMPROPER VENUE; DEFENDANTS’ MOTION TO CHANGE VENUE WAS SIX DAYS LATE; SUPREME COURT IMPROVIDENTLY EXERCISED ITS DISCRETION IN DENYING THE MOTION (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined defendants’ motion to change venue in this traffic-accident case should have been granted. Plaintiff had brought the action in an improper venue. Although the defendants’ motion to change venue was six days late, Supreme Court had the discretion to grant it:

CPLR 510 sets forth grounds on which a motion to change venue may be made. When a defendant moves to change venue on the ground that the venue selected by the plaintiff is not proper … , the defendant must serve a timely demand on the plaintiff prior to making the motion … . When a motion to change venue on this ground is untimely, the motion is addressed to the court’s discretion rather than based on right … . Here, the defendants acknowledge that, after serving a demand to change venue with their answer, they moved to change the venue of the action six days late. Thus, their motion “became one addressed to the court’s discretion” … .

Under the circumstances present here, the Supreme Court improvidently exercised its discretion in denying the defendants’ motion pursuant to CPLR 510 to change the venue of the action from Kings County to Suffolk County. Venue is proper “in the county in which one of the parties resided when [the action] was commenced; [or] the county in which a substantial part of the events or omissions giving rise to the claim occurred ” … . Here, there is no dispute that none of the parties resided in Kings County and that the accident did not occur in Kings County. By selecting an improper venue in the first instance, the plaintiff forfeited the right to choose venue … . Further, the plaintiff failed to show that the county specified by the defendants was improper and did not cross-move to retain venue in Kings County or to transfer venue to a county other than that urged by the defendants … . Moreover, although the defendants’ motion was untimely, they promptly moved to change the venue of the action after confirming the true location of the accident … . Pujals v Haitidis, 2025 NY Slip Op 03213, Second Dept 5-28-25

Practice Point: Plaintiff brought the action in an improper venue. Defendants’ motion to change venue was six days late. Under the facts, Supreme Court improvidently exercised its discretion when it denied defendants’ motion.

 

You might also like
Police Officer’s Draping Defendant’s Striped Shirt Over Defendant’s Chest During a Show-Up Identification Was Tantamount to Pointing Out the Defendant as the Perpetrator—Victim Had Told the Police the Perpetrator Was Wearing a Striped Shirt
Question of Fact Re: Plaintiff’s Comparative Fault Precludes Summary Judgment—Supreme Court Erroneously Granted Summary Judgment to Plaintiff “To the Extent … Defendant Is Liable”
OFFICER DID NOT HAVE A REASONABLE SUSPICION OF CRIMINAL ACTIVITY WHEN HE ASKED DEFENDANT ‘WHAT DO YOU HAVE,’ SEIZED WEAPON SHOULD HAVE BEEN SUPPRESSED (SECOND DEPT).
DOCUMENTS REGARDING PLAINTIFF’S DECEDENT’S FALLS IN DEFENDANT’S NURSING HOME WERE NOT PRIVILEGED UNDER THE PUBLIC HEALTH LAW (SECOND DEPT).
DEFENDANT DRIVER ATTEMPTED TO RAISE A FEIGNED FACTUAL ISSUE IN OPPOSITION TO PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT BY CONTRADICTING A STATEMENT ATTRIBUTED TO DEFENDANT IN THE POLICE REPORT, PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT IN THIS INTERSECTION TRAFFIC ACCIDENT CASE SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED (SECOND DEPT).
INCONSEQUENTIAL VIOLATIONS OF THE ELECTION LAW DID NOT INVALIDATE THE DESIGNATING PETITION (SECOND DEPT).
ALTHOUGH THE CHILD SUPPORT INCOME FOR TWO CHILDREN IN COLLEGE WAS COUNTED AS PART OF THE HOUSEHOLD INCOME, THE TWO COLLEGE STUDENTS WERE PROPERLY NOT COUNTED FOR FOOD STAMP ELIGIBILITY, THE DENIAL OF FOOD STAMPS WAS PROPER (SECOND DEPT).
PLAINTIFF SUBMITTED INSUFFICIENT PROOF THAT THE NOTICE REQUIRED BY RPAPL 1304 AND THE MORTGAGE WAS PROVIDED TO DEFENDANTS; PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT IN THIS FORECLOSURE ACTION 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

MOTHER BROUGHT A MANDAMUS-TO-COMPEL PROCEEDING TO REQUIRE THE SUPPORT MAGISTRATE... IN THIS CHILD VICTIMS ACT CASE ALLEGING SEXUAL ABUSE BY A SCHOOL JANITOR, THE...