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
RES IPSA LOQUITUR DOCTRINE MAY APPLY IN THIS ELEVATOR MALFUNCTION CASE (FIRST DEPT).
NEW YORK CITY HOUSING AUTHORITY COULD NOT AVOID DISCLOSURE OF RELEVANT DOCUMENTS BY RELYING ON ATTORNEY-CLIENT PRIVILEGE BECAUSE IT HAD PLACED THE KNOWLEDGE OF ITS LAW DEPARTMENT AT ISSUE, MOTION TO COMPEL WAS PROPERLY GRANTED, MONETARY SANCTIONS WERE PROPERLY ORDERED, WILLFUL AND CONTUMACIOUS BEHAVIOR NEED NOT BE SHOWN UNLESS A DRASTIC REMEDY LIKE STRIKING THE PLEADINGS IS IMPOSED (FIRST DEPT).
ALTHOUGH THE COMPLAINT WAS DEFECTIVE, AFFIDAVITS AND OTHER EVIDENCE DEMONSTRATE A POTENTIALLY MERITORIOUS CLAIM; THE COMPLAINT SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN DISMISSED (FIRST DEPT).
THIS BREACH OF CONTRACT ACTION WAS BASED UPON A LEASE ENTERED BY A LIMITED LIABILITY COMPANY THE ASSETS OF WHICH WERE PURCHASED BY THE TWO DEFENDANT LIMITED LIABILTY COMPANIES; THE MAJORITY CONCLUDED THE COMPLAINT STATED A CAUSE OF ACTION UNDER THE THEORY THAT THE DEFENDANTS CONSTITUTED A “MERE CONTINUATION” OF THE ORIGINAL LESSEE’S BUSINESS; THERE WAS A TWO-JUSTICE DISSENT (FIRST DEPT).
Mistrial on Motion by Prosecution Precluded Retrial.
PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT IN THIS LABOR LAW 240 (1) ACTION SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED, DESPITE PLAINTIFF’S AFFIDAVIT WHICH, IN PART, CONTRADICTED HIS DEPOSITION TESTIMONY (FIRST DEPT).
THE PEOPLE WERE AWARE OF THEIR WITNESS’S PLANS TO VACATION OUT OF THE COUNTRY, THE WITNESS’S ABSENCE WAS NOT AN EXCEPTIONAL CIRCUMSTANCE JUSTIFYING AN EXCLUSION OF TIME UNDER THE SPEEDY TRIAL STATUTE (FIRST DEPT).
IN THIS PRODUCTS LIABILITY ACTION WHERE A ROUTER SEVERED PLAINTIFF’S THUMB, THE FAILURE-TO-WARN CAUSE OF ACTION BASED ON THE MANUAL SHOULD HAVE BEEN DISMISSED BECAUSE PLANTIFF NEVER READ IT; THE GENERALIZED FAILURE-TO-WARN CAUSE OF ACTION PROPERLY SURVIVED SUMMARY JUDGMENT; DISAGREEING WITH THE SECOND DEPARTMENT, THE DESIGN-DEFECT CAUSE OF ACTION BASED ON THE LACK OF AN INTERLOCK DEVICE PROPERLY SURVIVED SUMMARY JUDGMENT (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...