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
THE COMPLAINT ALLEGED DECEDENT, WHO WAS SUFFERING SHORTNESS OF BREATH, SHOULD HAVE BEEN PROVIDED AN ADVANCE LIFE SUPPORT AMBULANCE; THE COMPLAINT SOUNDED IN MEDICAL MALPRACTICE, NOT NEGLIGENCE, AND WAS TIME-BARRED (FIRST DEPT).
PLAINTIFF STATED A HOSTILE WORK ENVIRONMENT CAUSE OF ACTION WITH THE ALLEGATION (AMONG OTHERS) THAT HIS ACCENT WAS MOCKED, BUT PLAINTIFF DID NOT DEMONSTATE HIS DEMOTION WAS RELATED TO SUCH ANIMUS; THERFORE THE DISCRIMINATION CAUSE OF ACTION SHOULD HAVE BEEN DISMISSED (FIRST DEPT).
IT WAS (HARMLESS) ERROR TO ALLOW THE ARRESTING OFFICER TO TESTIFY THAT DEFENDANT WAS DEPICTED IN THE VIDEOTAPE WHICH WAS BEING PLAYED (FIRST DEPT).
PETITIONER’S FOIL REQUEST FOR A POLICE MANUAL WAS AT FIRST DENIED, BUT WAS GRANTED AFTER THE ARTICLE 78 PROCEEDING WAS BROUGHT; RESPONDENT DID NOT HAVE A GOOD REASON FOR FIRST DENYING THE REQUEST; PETITIONER “SUBSTANTIALLY PREVAILED” AND WAS ENTITLED TO ATTORNEY’S FEES (FIRST DEPT).
ALTHOUGH PLAINTIFF’S EXPERT IN THIS ELEVATOR ACCIDENT CASE WAS NOT A PROFESSIONAL ENGINEER, HE HAD BEEN QUALIFIED AS AN EXPERT IN 120 CASES; THE JUDGE SHOULD NOT HAVE SUMMARILY DISQUALIFIED HIM (FIRST DEPT).
THE DECISION TO CALL OR NOT CALL A WITNESS IS ENTIRELY THE PROVINCE OF DEFENSE COUNSEL, WHETHER OR NOT THE DEFENDANT AGREES.
IN AN ACTION BY CATERING WAITSTAFF SEEKING TIPS ALLEGEDLY WITHHELD BY THE EMPLOYER IN VIOLATION OF THE LABOR LAW, THE EMPLOYER CANNOT SEEK INDEMNIFICATION FROM A CONTRACTOR WHICH SUPPLIED CATERING STAFF TO THE EMPLOYER (FIRST DEPT). ​
LABOR LAW 240 (1) AND 241 (6) CAUSES OF ACTION SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN DISMISSED, LIGHTING BAR FELL ON PLAINTIFF WHEN HE WAS DISMANTLING AN EXHIBITION BOOTH.

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...