You are here: / / THE PHRASE ‘WITHIN FIVE DAYS’ IN CPLR 511, A CHANGE OF VENUE...

THE PHRASE ‘WITHIN FIVE DAYS’ IN CPLR 511, A CHANGE OF VENUE STATUTE, DOES NOT IMPOSE A WAITING PERIOD FOR A MOTION TO CHANGE VENUE, THE MOTION MAY BE MADE WITHIN THE FIVE DAYS (THIRD DEPT), ​

The Third Department, over a partial dissent, determined that the phrase “within five days” in a change of venue statute (CPLR 511) did not impose a five day waiting period:

Asserting that Ulster County was an improper venue for the proceeding, the Steeles served a timely written demand that the proceeding be tried in Oswego County (see CPLR 511 [b]). Four days later, the Steeles moved, in Ulster County, to change venue of the proceeding to Oswego County. The Aarons argue that the Steeles, by failing to wait five days after their demand to allow the Aarons an opportunity to provide a written consent to change venue, failed to comply with the statutory procedure and thereby were not entitled to a change of venue as of right. This argument is based on an interpretation that the language “unless within five days” places a hold on the defendant’s obligation to make a motion, during which time the defendant must simply wait for the plaintiff to respond to the demand (CPLR 511 [b]). We disagree with that interpretation of the statute.

The Aarons’ argument appears to focus exclusively on the phrase “unless within five days.” However, a plaintiff can choose not to respond to the demand, so the defendant may be sitting and waiting for nothing. In our view, the five-day window is a time limit on the plaintiff only, and the defendant is not required to refrain from doing anything during that period. Instead, the limits placed on a defendant under CPLR 511 (b) — other than the 15-day limit to move for change of venue — are contingent on whatever response the plaintiff may provide, rather than a five-day time period. While the five days are a limit on the plaintiff’s ability to respond to the demand, the defendant retains the ability to make the venue motion “unless . . . [the] plaintiff serves a written consent” agreeing to the venue selected by the defendant (CPLR 511 [b]). In other words, the important occurrence for the defendant is the plaintiff granting consent, not the passage of days. If the plaintiff consents to the demanded change in venue, the defendant may not move for such relief. In a situation where the defendant made a motion before the end of the plaintiff’s five-day response window and the plaintiff thereafter consented, the defendant would have to withdraw the motion (which would be unnecessary at that point anyway). Matter of Aaron v Steele, 2018 NY Slip Op 07393, Third Dept 11-1-18

CIVIL PROCEDURE (VENUE, THE PHRASE ‘WITHIN FIVE DAYS’ IN CPLR 511, A CHANGE OF VENUE STATUTE, DOES NOT IMPOSE A WAITING PERIOD FOR A MOTION TO CHANGE VENUE, THE MOTION MAY BE MADE WITHIN THE FIVE DAYS (THIRD DEPT))/CPLR 511 (VENUE, THE PHRASE ‘WITHIN FIVE DAYS’ IN CPLR 511, A CHANGE OF VENUE STATUTE, DOES NOT IMPOSE A WAITING PERIOD FOR A MOTION TO CHANGE VENUE, THE MOTION MAY BE MADE WITHIN THE FIVE DAYS (THIRD DEPT))/VENUE (THE PHRASE ‘WITHIN FIVE DAYS’ IN CPLR 511, A CHANGE OF VENUE STATUTE, DOES NOT IMPOSE A WAITING PERIOD FOR A MOTION TO CHANGE VENUE, THE MOTION MAY BE MADE WITHIN THE FIVE DAYS (THIRD DEPT))

You might also like
Procedure for Resentencing Under Drug Law Reform Act Not Followed
SUPREME COURT WENT BEYOND THE PERMISSIBLE REVIEW OF THE DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL CONSERVATION’S DETERMINATION UNION CARBIDE’S FOIL REQUESTS WERE MOOT BECAUSE THE REQUESTED DOCUMENTS HAD BEEN PROVIDED; ONCE SUPREME COURT FOUND THAT THE FOIL REQUEST WAS NOT MOOT BECAUSE THERE WERE ADDITIONAL DOCUMENTS, IT SHOULD NOT HAVE GONE ON TO CONSIDER WHETHER THE ADDITIONAL DOCUMENTS WERE EXEMPT FROM DISCLOSURE (THIRD DEPT).
QUESTION OF FACT WHETHER PLAINTIFF ACTED TO MITIGATE ITS DAMAGES FROM THE BREAKDOWN OF EQUIPMENT IN THIS BUSINESS INTERRUPTION INSURANCE CASE (THIRD DEPT).
THERE WAS NO INDICATION ON THE FORM AND NO REGULATION REQUIRING CLAIMANT TO SUBMIT A SEPARATE RB-89 FORM FOR EACH CLAIM; THE BOARD THEREFORE ABUSED ITS DISCRETION WHEN IT REFUSED TO REVIEW THE WORKERS’ COMPENSATION LAW JUDGE’S (WCLJ’S) DECISION ON THAT GROUND (THIRD DEPT).
THE NOTE WAS ENDORSED IN BLANK REQUIRING PLAINTIFF TO DEMONSTRATE POSSESSION OF THE NOTE AT THE TIME THE FORECLOSURE ACTION WAS COMMENCED; FAILURE TO DEMONSTRATE POSSESSION CONSTITUTED A FAILURE TO DEMONSTRATE STANDING TO FORECLOSE (THIRD DEPT).
MANNER IN WHICH DECORATIONS WERE STACKED IN A STORE DID NOT PRESENT A FORESEEABLE RISK, RES IPSA LOQUITUR DOCTRINE DID NOT APPLY (THIRD DEPT).
ORAL OFFER TO SELL SHARES IN FAMILY CORPORATION FORMED SOLELY TO OWN ONE PIECE OF REAL PROPERTY WAS SUBJECT TO THE STATUTE OF FRAUDS, THE WRITING REQUIREMENT WAS NOT REMOVED BY PART PERFORMANCE. 
CLAIM DID NOT MEET THE SPECIFICITY REQUIREMENTS OF COURT OF CLAIMS ACT 11 AND WAS PROPERLY DISMISSED (THIRD 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

STACKED SHEETROCK DID NOT PRESENT AN ELEVATION RELATED HAZARD AND DID NOT BLOCK... PLAINTIFF WAS ENTITLED TO SUMMARY JUDGMENT ON HIS LABOR LAW 240 (1) CAUSE OF...