You are here: / / IN THIS FRAUD ACTION, PLAINTIFF COULD NOT DEMONSTRATE THE FRAUDULENT STATEMENTS...
,

IN THIS FRAUD ACTION, PLAINTIFF COULD NOT DEMONSTRATE THE FRAUDULENT STATEMENTS WERE MADE IN ERIE COUNTY; THEREFORE THE PLACE OF DEFENDANT’S RESIDENCE, NEW YORK COUNTY, WAS PROPERLY DESIGNATED THE VENUE FOR THE ACTION (FOURTH DEPT).

The Fourth Department, in a full-fledged opinion by Justice Troutman, determined New York County was the proper venue for this fraud action because plaintiff did not demonstrate the fraudulent statements allegedly made by defendant were made in Erie County, as opposed to Cleveland, Ohio. Absent proof the statements were made in Erie County, the fact that defendant resides in New York County controlled:

… New York County is indisputably a proper county based upon defendant’s residence therein (see CPLR 503 [a]). Because none of the parties resides in Erie County, the sole question before the trial court was whether “a substantial part of the events or omissions giving rise to the claim occurred” in Erie County … . …

The legislature only recently added a provision to CPLR 503 (a) that allows venue based on the location of the events underlying the claim … , but the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure contain an identical provision (see 28 USC § 1391 [b] [2]), doubtless the model for the amended language in CPLR 503 (a). In determining whether venue is proper under that provision, the Second Circuit applies a two-part inquiry. First, the court must “identify the nature of the claims and the acts or omissions that the plaintiff alleges give rise to those claims” … . Second, the court must “determine whether a substantial part of those acts or omissions occurred in the district where suit was filed, that is, whether ‘significant events or omissions material to [those] claim[s] . . . have occurred in the district in question’ ” … . In a fraud claim, the act giving rise to the claim is the alleged making of the fraudulent statement … . Consistent with that, federal courts have found venue to be proper based upon “where the defendant allegedly made the fraudulent statements” … . …

Plaintiff … failed to show that material, fraudulent statements were made in Erie County … . Harvard Steel Sales, LLC v Bain, 2020 NY Slip Op 05635, Fourth Dept 10-9-20

 

You might also like
Decedent’s Divorce Did Not Invalidate Provisions of Her 1996 Will Which Made Her Former Father-In-Law the Alternate Executor and Alternate Beneficiary/Proof Was Insufficient to Demonstrate the 1996 Will Had Been Revoked by a Lost Will
THE DEFENDANT’S SIGNATURE ON THE PRENUPTIAL AGREEMENT WAS NOT ACKNOWLEDGED UNTIL RIGHT BEFORE THE DIVORCE PROCEEDINGS, SEVEN YEARS AFTER PLAINTIFF’S SIGNATURE ON THE AGREEMENT WAS ACKNOWLEDGED; IN THIS CIRCUMSTANCE, THE PRENUPTIAL AGREEMENT MUST BE MUTUALLY REAFFIRMED TO BE VALID (FOURTH DEPT).
VILLAGE EMPLOYEE’S TERMINATION BECAUSE HE DID NOT HAVE A COMMERCIAL DRIVER’S LICENSE WAS ARBITRARY AND CAPRICIOUS, JOB DESCRIPTION DID NOT EXPLICITLY REQUIRE A COMMERCIAL DRIVER’S LICENSE (FOURTH DEPT).
THE JURY SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN INSTRUCTED ON CONSTRUCTIVE POSSESSION IN THIS CRIMIINAL POSSESSION OF A WEAPON PROSECUTION (FOURTH DEPT).
ALTHOUGH THE VICTIM, AFTER IDENTIFYING DEFENDANT IN A PHOTO ARRAY, ASKED TO SEE A SECOND PHOTO ARRAY, HER IDENTIFICATION OF THE DEFENDANT WAS NOT AGAINST THE WEIGHT OF THE EVIDENCE; THERE WAS A STRONG DISSENT (FOURTH DEPT). ​
IN THIS PARTITION ACTION, THERE WAS NO PENDING MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT AND THERE WAS NO INDICATION THE PARTIES HAD LAID THEIR PROOF BARE SUCH THAT THE COURT COULD CONSIDER GRANTING SUMMARY JUDGMENT; SUMMARY JUDGMENT SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN AWARDED (FOURTH DEPT). ​
SUPREME COURT SHOULD NOT HAVE AUTHORIZED CHANGING THE CHILD’S NAME TO A NAME NOT REQUESTED IN FATHER’S PETITION, A HEARING IS REQUIRED TO DETERMINE WHETHER THE NAME CHANGE IS IN THE CHILD’S BEST INTERESTS (FOURTH DEPT).
IN THIS CONSTRUCTIVE POSSESSION CASE, THE INVESTIGATOR’S ASKING DEFENDANT WHERE HE RESIDED WAS DESIGNED TO ELICIT AN INCRIMINATING RESPONSE, THEREFORE DEFENDANT’S RESPONSE WAS NOT PEDIGREE INFORMATION AND A CPL 710.30 NOTICE WAS REQUIRED, ADMISSION OF THE STATEMENT WAS HARMLESS ERROR HOWEVER (FOURTH 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

IN THIS DEFICIENCY JUDGMENT ACTION, THE PLAINTIFF DID NOT PRESENT SUFFICIENT... THE UNAMBIGUOUS INSURANCE POLICY DID NOT INCLUDE COVERAGE FOR LOSS OF BUSINESS...