Bakiriddin v. Idi Construction Co.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Bakiriddin v. Idi Construction Co.

45 A.D.3d 300, 846 N.Y.S.2d 1

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

DecidedNovember 8, 2007

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 45 A.D.3d 300 (Bakiriddin v. Idi Construction Co.) 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

Bakiriddin v. Idi Construction Co., 45 A.D.3d 300, 846 N.Y.S.2d 1 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2007).

Pincite

Opinion

Order, Supreme Court, Bronx County (Patricia Anne Williams, J.), entered June 15, 2006, which, in an action for personal injuries and wrongful death, insofar as appealed from, denied third-party defendant appellant’s motion to change venue from Bronx County to Westchester County or New York County, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

It appears that after the accident, which occurred at a construction site in New York County, plaintiffs decedent, who was appellant’s employee, was taken to a hospital in New York County, where he remained for two months, and then to a nursing home in Bronx County, where he died eight months later after being in a comatose state for most, if not all, of his stay [301]*301there. Venue was placed in Bronx County upon plaintiffs appointment there as administrator (CPLR 503 [b]). While the pleading filed with the Bronx County Surrogate’s Court provided plaintiffs address in Westchester, it also indicated, as reflected in the death certificate, decedent’s residence and place of death as Bronx County. Absent any evidence that plaintiffs application for testamentary letters fraudulently misrepresented or withheld facts pertaining to the decedent’s domicile, a collateral attack on the Bronx County Surrogate’s appointment of plaintiff is foreclosed (SCPA 204, 205 [1]; see Maurer v JohnsManville, Inc., 126 AD2d 524 [1987]). Even if the motion for change of venue was properly before this Court, since appellant “failed to follow the requisite procedures of CPLR 511, i.e., a demand for change of venue followed by a timely motion,” it would not be entitled to a change of venue as of right, based on its principal place of business in Westchester County (Mordas v Schenkein, 19 AD3d 182, 183 [2005]; Matter of Howard v New York State Bd. of Parole, 5 AD3d 271 [2004]). Nor would appellant be entitled to a discretionary change of venue since it identified no nonparty material witnesses whose convenience would be served by a change of venue from Bronx County to New York County (CPLR 510 [3]; Leopold v Goldstein, 283 AD2d 319, 320 [2001]). Concur—Andrias, J.P., Buckley, Catterson, Malone and Kavanagh, JJ.

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

Order, Supreme Court, Bronx County (Patricia Anne Williams, J.), entered June 15, 2006, which, in an action for personal injuries and wrongful death, insofar as appealed from, denied third-party defendant appellant’s motion to change venue from Bronx County to Westchester County or New York County, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

It appears that after the accident, which occurred at a construction site in New York County, plaintiffs decedent, who was appellant’s employee, was taken to a hospital in New York County, where he remained for two months, and then to a nursing home in Bronx County, where he died eight months later after being in a comatose state for most, if not all, of his stay [301]*301there. Venue was placed in Bronx County upon plaintiffs appointment there as administrator (CPLR 503 [b]). While the pleading filed with the Bronx County Surrogate’s Court provided plaintiffs address in Westchester, it also indicated, as reflected in the death certificate, decedent’s residence and place of death as Bronx County. Absent any evidence that plaintiffs application for testamentary letters fraudulently misrepresented or withheld facts pertaining to the decedent’s domicile, a collateral attack on the Bronx County Surrogate’s appointment of plaintiff is foreclosed (SCPA 204, 205 [1]; see Maurer v JohnsManville, Inc., 126 AD2d 524 [1987]). Even if the motion for change of venue was properly before this Court, since appellant “failed to follow the requisite procedures of CPLR 511, i.e., a demand for change of venue followed by a timely motion,” it would not be entitled to a change of venue as of right, based on its principal place of business in Westchester County (Mordas v Schenkein, 19 AD3d 182, 183 [2005]; Matter of Howard v New York State Bd. of Parole, 5 AD3d 271 [2004]). Nor would appellant be entitled to a discretionary change of venue since it identified no nonparty material witnesses whose convenience would be served by a change of venue from Bronx County to New York County (CPLR 510 [3]; Leopold v Goldstein, 283 AD2d 319, 320 [2001]). Concur—Andrias, J.P., Buckley, Catterson, Malone and Kavanagh, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

45 A.D.3d 300, 846 N.Y.S.2d 1, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/bakiriddin-v-idi-construction-co-nyappdiv-2007.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack