Basile v. Grand Union Co.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Basile v. Grand Union Co.

196 A.D.2d 836, 602 N.Y.S.2d 30, 1993 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 8577

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

DecidedSeptember 20, 1993

StatusPublished

Cited by10 cases

This text of 196 A.D.2d 836 (Basile v. Grand Union 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

Basile v. Grand Union Co., 196 A.D.2d 836, 602 N.Y.S.2d 30, 1993 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 8577 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1993).

Pincite

Opinion

In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, etc., the plaintiffs appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Suffolk County (Copertino, J.), dated July 1, 1991, which granted the defendant’s motion for change of venue.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.

[837]*837We agree with the plaintiffs’ contention that the papers submitted in support of the defendant’s motion to change venue from Suffolk County to Otsego County on the ground that the convenience of material witnesses and the ends of justice would be promoted were insufficient (see, Ryan v Genovese Pharmacy, 184 AD2d 628; CPLR 510 [3]). The defendant also claimed that Suffolk County was not a proper place of trial, but did so for the first time in its reply to the plaintiffs’ affirmation in opposition to the motion. However, the plaintiffs availed themselves of an opportunity to oppose this claim in their surreply. Thus, review of this claim on the merits is proper (see, Fiore v Oakwood Plaza Shopping Ctr., 164 AD2d 737, affd 78 NY2d 572, cert denied — US —, 113 S Ct 75). Under the facts of this case, we find that Suffolk County was not a proper venue (see, CPLR 503 [a]). Bracken, J. P., Balletta, Eiber, O’Brien and Pizzuto, JJ., concur.

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

In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, etc., the plaintiffs appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Suffolk County (Copertino, J.), dated July 1, 1991, which granted the defendant’s motion for change of venue.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.

[837]*837We agree with the plaintiffs’ contention that the papers submitted in support of the defendant’s motion to change venue from Suffolk County to Otsego County on the ground that the convenience of material witnesses and the ends of justice would be promoted were insufficient (see, Ryan v Genovese Pharmacy, 184 AD2d 628; CPLR 510 [3]). The defendant also claimed that Suffolk County was not a proper place of trial, but did so for the first time in its reply to the plaintiffs’ affirmation in opposition to the motion. However, the plaintiffs availed themselves of an opportunity to oppose this claim in their surreply. Thus, review of this claim on the merits is proper (see, Fiore v Oakwood Plaza Shopping Ctr., 164 AD2d 737, affd 78 NY2d 572, cert denied — US —, 113 S Ct 75). Under the facts of this case, we find that Suffolk County was not a proper venue (see, CPLR 503 [a]). Bracken, J. P., Balletta, Eiber, O’Brien and Pizzuto, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

196 A.D.2d 836, 602 N.Y.S.2d 30, 1993 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 8577, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/basile-v-grand-union-co-nyappdiv-1993.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack