Auer v. Power Authority

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Auer v. Power Authority

99 A.D.2d 679, 472 N.Y.S.2d 50, 1984 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 16946

CourtAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York

DecidedJanuary 27, 1984

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 99 A.D.2d 679 (Auer v. Power Authority) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Auer v. Power Authority, 99 A.D.2d 679, 472 N.Y.S.2d 50, 1984 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 16946 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1984).

Pincite

Opinion

Order unanimously reversed, without costs, and defendant’s motion granted. Memorandum: Defendant appeals from an order of Special Term which denied its motion to change venue to New York County and granted plaintiffs’ cross motion to retain venue in Oswego County. CPLR 505 (subd [a]) requires that “[t]he place of trial of an action by or against a public authority * * * shall be in the county in which the authority has its principal office or where it has facilities involved in the action.” Oswego County is not a proper county for venue since the authority’s principal office is in New York County and the facilities involved in the action are not located in Oswego. In any event, pursuant to CPLR 510 (subd 3), venue should be set in New York County for the convenience of witnesses. (Appeal from order of Supreme Court, Onondaga County, Murphy, J. — change of venue.) Present — Hancock, Jr., J. P., Callahan, Denman, Boomer and Moule, JJ.

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

Order unanimously reversed, without costs, and defendant’s motion granted. Memorandum: Defendant appeals from an order of Special Term which denied its motion to change venue to New York County and granted plaintiffs’ cross motion to retain venue in Oswego County. CPLR 505 (subd [a]) requires that “[t]he place of trial of an action by or against a public authority * * * shall be in the county in which the authority has its principal office or where it has facilities involved in the action.” Oswego County is not a proper county for venue since the authority’s principal office is in New York County and the facilities involved in the action are not located in Oswego. In any event, pursuant to CPLR 510 (subd 3), venue should be set in New York County for the convenience of witnesses. (Appeal from order of Supreme Court, Onondaga County, Murphy, J. — change of venue.) Present — Hancock, Jr., J. P., Callahan, Denman, Boomer and Moule, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

99 A.D.2d 679, 472 N.Y.S.2d 50, 1984 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 16946, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/auer-v-power-authority-nyappdiv-1984.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack