You are here: / Criteria for a Change of Venue Not Met—Party Seeking Change Must...

Search Results

/

Criteria for a Change of Venue Not Met—Party Seeking Change Must First Demonstrate Existing Venue Is Improper

Reversing Supreme Court, the Second Department held that defendant’s motion to change venue should have been denied.  The court explained the analytical criteria:

“In the context of determining the proper venue of an action, a party may have more than one residence” … . Under CPLR 503(d), the county of an individual’s principal office is a proper venue for claims arising out of that business (see CPLR 503[d]…). Here, the plaintiff seeks to recover damages for medical malpractice allegedly committed by, among others, the defendant Jung Lack Lee in his capacity as a medical doctor. Accordingly, the county in which that defendant maintains his principal office is a proper venue in this case.

To prevail on a CPLR 510(1) motion to transfer venue, a defendant bears the burden of demonstrating that the plaintiff’s choice of venue was improper on the day the action was commenced, and that the defendant’s choice of venue is proper (see CPLR 511[b]…). Only if a defendant meets this burden is the plaintiff required to establish, in opposition, that the venue selected was proper … . Here, the defendants failed to establish that Kings County was improper … . Accordingly, the Supreme Court should have denied the defendants’ motions to transfer venue and granted that branch of the plaintiff’s cross motion which was to retain venue in Kings County. Young Sun Chung v Kwah, 2014 NY Slip Op 07656, 2nd Dept 11-12-14

 

/ ,

Question of Fact Raised About Defendant’s Comparative Negligence in Striking a Bicyclist Travelling the Wrong Way on a One-Way Street

The Second Department reversed Supreme Court’s grant of summary judgment to the defendant in a bicycle-vehicle collision action.  The bicyclist was traveling the wrong way on a one-way street and the collision occurred in an intersection after defendant had stopped at a stop sign before entering the intersection.  Although the bicyclist was negligent as a matter of law, the court determined that a question of fact had been raised about defendant’s failure to see what was there to be seen (comparative negligence):

… [T]he defendant failed to make a prima facie showing that she was free from comparative fault in the happening of the accident … . When asked at her deposition when she first saw the plaintiff’s bicycle, she responded “I saw an object. As I was — I stopped. And then as I proceeded to cross the intersection, I felt something. And I saw an object.” This testimony demonstrated the existence of triable issues of fact exist regarding whether the defendant failed to see what was there to be seen through the proper use of her senses … and whether she failed to exercise reasonable care to avoid the collision with the plaintiff’s bicycle … . Accordingly, since the defendant failed to establish her prima facie entitlement to judgment as a matter of law, the Supreme Court should have denied her motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint, regardless of the sufficiency of the plaintiff’s opposition papers … . Palmeri v Erricola, 2014 NY Slip Op 07637, 2nd Dept 11-12-14

 

/ , ,

Procedure for Determining a Pre-Answer Motion to Dismiss a Declaratory Judgment Action Explained

In the context of an action for a declaratory judgment concerning the legality of the collective bargaining agreement (re: the waiver of seniority rights), the Second Department explained how a pre-answer motion to dismiss pursuant to CPLR 3211 (a)(7) [failure to state a cause of action] should be considered:

A motion to dismiss a declaratory judgment action prior to the service of an answer presents for consideration only the issue of whether a cause of action for declaratory relief is set forth, not the question of whether the plaintiff is entitled to a favorable declaration'” … . “Thus, where a cause of action is sufficient to invoke the court’s power to render a declaratory judgment . . . as to the rights and other legal relations of the parties to a justiciable controversy, a motion to dismiss that cause of action should be denied'” … . A court may reach “the merits of a properly pleaded cause of action for a declaratory judgment upon a motion to dismiss for failure to state a cause of action where no questions of fact are presented [by the controversy]'” … . Under such circumstances, the motion to dismiss the cause of action for failure to state a cause of action “should be taken as a motion for a declaration in the defendant’s favor and treated accordingly”… .  Bregman v East Ramapo Cent Sch Dist, 2014 NY Slip Op 07610, 2nd Dept 11-12-14

 

/ ,

Procedure for Handling a Motion to Dismiss for Failure to State a Cause of Action When Documentary Evidence Is Submitted in Support of the Motion Explained—Attorney Discharged For Cause Is Not Entitled to “Quantum Meruit” Attorney’s Fees

In affirming the dismissal of plaintiff’s complaint, the Second Department explained the relevant analysis when documentary proof is submitted by a defendant in connection with a motion to dismiss for failure to state a cause of action pursunt to CPLR 3211(a)(7).  The action was brought by an attorney who had been discharged for cause by his clients prior to the settlement of a personal injury action:

In considering a motion to dismiss a complaint for failure to state a cause of action pursuant to CPLR 3211(a)(7), the court must accept the facts as alleged in the complaint as true, accord the plaintiff the benefit of every possible favorable inference, and determine only whether the facts as alleged fit within any cognizable legal theory … . Where, however, a defendant has submitted evidence in support of a motion to dismiss pursuant to CPLR 3211(a)(7), and the motion has not been converted into one for summary judgment, the criterion is whether the plaintiff has a cause of action, not whether he or she has stated one, and, “unless it has been shown that a material fact as claimed by the [plaintiff] to be one is not a fact at all and unless it can be said that no significant dispute exists regarding it, . . . dismissal should not eventuate” … . Dismissal pursuant to CPLR 3211(a)(7) is warranted if the evidentiary proof disproves an essential allegation of the complaint, even if the allegations of the complaint, standing alone, could withstand a motion to dismiss for failure to state a cause of action … . * * *

A client has the right to discharge his or her attorney at any time … . While an attorney who is discharged without cause before the completion of services may recover the reasonable value of his or her services in quantum meruit, an attorney who is discharged for cause is not entitled to any compensation or lien … . Here, the court held a hearing pursuant to 22 NYCRR 603.13(b) with respect to the plaintiff’s cross motion for attorney’s fees. The court determined that the plaintiff was properly discharged for cause, and, therefore, was not entitled to recover in quantum meruit. Siskin v Cassar, 2014 NY Slip Op 07646, 2nd Dept 11-12-14

 

/ ,

The Proper Vehicle to Address Fraud Which Is Alleged to Have Tainted a Completed Proceeding Is a Motion to Vacate the Judgment, Not the Institution of a New Plenary Action

The Second Department noted that the remedy for addressing fraud in a completed action is a motion to vacate the judgment in that action, not a new plenary proceeding:

“Generally, a party who has lost a case as a result of alleged fraud or false testimony cannot collaterally attack the judgment in a separate action for damages against the party who adduced the false evidence” … . The “plaintiff’s remedy lies exclusively in that lawsuit itself, i.e., by moving pursuant to CPLR 5015 to vacate the . . . judgment due to its fraudulent procurement, not a second plenary action collaterally attacking the judgment in the original action” … . Stewart v Citimortgage Inc, 2014 NY Slip Op 07648, 2nd Dept 11-12-14

 

/ , ,

Town Board Is Not a Necessary Party In an Action Against the Town—Acts of the Town Board Under Statutory Authority Are the Acts of the Town—Court’s Power to Join a Necessary Party Sua Sponte Noted (Not Properly Exercised Here)

The Second Department explained that, in a declaratory judgment action against a town challenging a local law, the town board is not a necessary party:

A “court may at any stage of a case and on its own motion determine whether there is a nonjoinder of necessary parties” … . “In a matter seeking a declaratory judgment challenging a legislative act, the legislative body that enacted the challenged law or ordinance is a necessary party” … .

In this declaratory judgment action against the Town of Huntington, challenging a Local Law enacted by the Town Board of the Town of Huntington (hereinafter the Town Board), the Supreme Court, sua sponte, directed the joinder of the Town Board as a defendant on the ground that it is a necessary party without which the action cannot proceed. However, a town board “shall be vested with all the powers of such a town” (Town Law § 60[1]) and “cannot and does not exist separately and independently from the town of which it is the governing body . . . [T]he acts of a town board when performed under statutory authority are the acts of the town” … . Accordingly, as the Town is a party defendant in this action, it was unnecessary for the court to have directed the joinder of the Town Board as a defendant … . Dish Realty LLC v Town of Huntington, 2014 NY Slip Op 07616, 2nd Dept 11-12-14

 

/ , , ,

Agreement to Pay over $500,000 (Re: Prior Loans Allegedly Made Over a Period Time) Not Enforceable Because the Agreement Did Not Express Any Consideration—Past Consideration Is No Consideration Because the Detriment Did Not Induce the Promise

The Second Department determined that an agreement to pay over $500,000, allegedly constituting the amount of past loans made over a period of time, was not enforceable because the agreement did not express any consideration.  However, the cause of action for monies had and received properly survived summary judgment:

The lack of consideration for a note is a bona fide defense to payment thereof … . Generally, past consideration is no consideration and cannot support an agreement because “the detriment did not induce the promise” … . That is, “since the detriment had already been incurred, it cannot be said to have been bargained for in exchange for the promise” … . However, a “promise in writing and signed by the promisor or by his agent shall not be denied effect as a valid contractual obligation on the ground that consideration for the promise is past or executed, if the consideration is expressed in the writing and is proved to have been given or performed and would be a valid consideration but for the time when it was given or performed” (General Obligations Law § 5-1105 [emphasis added]).

Here, as indicated, the agreement did not express any consideration. Thus, it is not enforceable as a promissory note or as a contract (see General Obligations Law § 5-1105; Uniform Commercial Code § 3-104[1][a]-[d]; [2][d…). Samet v Binson, 2014 NY Slip Op -7643, 2nd Dept 11-12-14

 

/ ,

Work Performed by Plaintiff Was Not “Home Improvement”—No License Required

The Second Department affirmed Supreme Court’s finding that the installation of motorized window shades did not constitute “home improvement” and therefore plaintiff was not required to be licensed to perform the work.  If a license had been required by the Administrative Code of the City of New York, plaintiff would not have been able to recover under contract or quantum meruit:

“Where a home improvement contractor is not properly licensed in the municipality where the work is performed at the time the work is performed, the contractor forfeits the right to recover for the work performed both under the contract and on a quantum meruit basis” … . Here, contrary to the defendants’ contention, the Supreme Court properly determined that the plaintiff’s installation of motorized window shades in their condominium did not constitute “home improvement” work within the meaning of Administrative Code of the City of New York § 20-386(2)…). Rather, the plaintiff’s installation of motorized window shades constituted decorative work, which was not “incidental or related to” the separate home improvement renovations being performed by other contractors at the defendant’s condominium (Administrative Code of City of NY § 20-386[2]…). Schimko v Haley, 2014 NY Slip Op 07644, 2nd Dept 11-12-14

 

/

Delay In Seeking DNA Sample Contributed to Violation of Speedy Trial Statute—Indictment Dismissed

The Second Department dismissed the indictment because the unexcused delay in seeking a DNA sample resulted in the violation of the speedy trial statute (CPL 30.30):

The defendant moved pursuant to CPL 30.30 to dismiss the indictment on the ground that he was deprived of his statutory right to a speedy trial. Contrary to the People’s contention, because the People failed to exercise due diligence in obtaining the DNA sample from the defendant, the 161-day period between June 5, 2009, and November 13, 2009, was not excludable on the ground that their need to obtain the DNA test results constituted excusable, exceptional circumstances (see CPL 30.30[4][g]…). Adding this period of time to the periods of delay correctly conceded by the People, the People exceeded the six-month period in which they were required to be ready for trial (see CPL 30.30[1][a]). Accordingly, the judgment must be reversed, the defendant’s motion pursuant to CPL 30.30 granted, and the indictment dismissed. People v Clarke, 2014 NY Slip Op 07680, 2nd Dept 11-12-14

 

/ ,

Proof of “Physical Injury” Legally Insufficient (Lacerated Finger)

The Second Department determined the evidence of “physical injury” suffered by Sergeant Klein , required for the offense of Assault in the Second Degree, was legally insufficient:

Physical injury is defined as “impairment of physical condition or substantial pain” (Penal Law § 10.00[9]). Sergeant Klein did not testify at trial. His medical records, which were admitted into evidence, indicated that he suffered a laceration to a finger on his right hand, with abrasions, pain, and swelling. While it is true that, to constitute physical injury, the pain caused by such a wound need not “be severe or intense to be substantial” …, it must, at a minimum, cause “more than slight or trivial pain” (id. at 447) or, to some extent, result in the impairment of the use of the finger (see Penal Law § 10.00[9]). No evidence was introduced that the injuries sustained by Sergeant Klein caused him more than trivial pain, or that the use of his finger was impaired by these injuries … . Accordingly, the defendant’s conviction of assault in the second degree under count two of the indictment must be vacated, and that count of the indictment must be dismissed. People v Perry, 2014 NY Slip Op 07689, 2nd Dept 11-12-14

 

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