Astillero v. Abramov

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Astillero v. Abramov

92 A.D.3d 436, 937 N.Y.2d 593

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York·Decided February 2, 2012·Published·Cited by 2 cases

Opinion

Plaintiff initially chose an improper venue in New York County. However, plaintiff selected this venue based on Department of Motor Vehicle records, which indicated that defendant Asia Abramov resided in New York County. Defendant Abramov had recently moved to Queens County, but failed to notify the Department of Motor Vehicle as required by Vehicle and Traffic Law § 505 (5). Under these circumstances, plaintiff did not forfeit her right to choose a venue by her initial choice of a venue that turned out to be improper (see Vasquez v Sonin, 259 AD2d 340, 341 [1999]). Concur — Mazzarelli, J.P, Friedman, Catterson, Renwick and Román, JJ.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Plaintiff initially chose an improper venue in New York County. However, plaintiff selected this venue based on Department of Motor Vehicle records, which indicated that defendant Asia Abramov resided in New York County. Defendant Abramov had recently moved to Queens County, but failed to notify the Department of Motor Vehicle as required by Vehicle and Traffic Law § 505 (5). Under these circumstances, plaintiff did not forfeit her right to choose a venue by her initial choice of a venue that turned out to be improper (see Vasquez v Sonin, 259 AD2d 340, 341 [1999]). Concur — Mazzarelli, J.P, Friedman, Catterson, Renwick and Román, JJ.

Astillero v. Abramov, 92 A.D.3d 436, 937 N.Y.2d 593 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2012).

Pincite

92 A.D.3d 436 (Astillero v. Abramov) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related