Boykin Management Co. v. Watson Co.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Boykin Management Co. v. Watson Co.

134 A.D.2d 859, 522 N.Y.S.2d 44, 1987 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 51044

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

DecidedNovember 10, 1987

StatusPublished

This text of 134 A.D.2d 859 (Boykin Management Co. v. Watson 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

Boykin Management Co. v. Watson Co., 134 A.D.2d 859, 522 N.Y.S.2d 44, 1987 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 51044 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1987).

Pincite

Opinion

— Order unanimously affirmed without costs. Memorandum: Third-party defendant’s motion for a change of venue was properly denied. The sole ground for this motion was that the action was not properly brought in Kings County (CPLR 510 [1]). Venue was properly laid in Kings County as it is plaintiffs residence (CPLR 503, 509). We do not [860]*860consider third-party defendant’s claim, made for the first time on appeal, that venue should be changed to Erie County for the convenience of material witnesses and to promote the ends of justice (see, CPLR 510 [3]; Pietropaoli Trucking v Nationwide Mut. Ins. Co., 100 AD2d 680, 681). Further, a motion on these grounds must be brought in the county where venue is laid or as authorized by CPLR 2212 (a) (2 Weinstein-KornMiller, NY Civ Prac ¶ 510.10). (Appeal from order of Supreme Court, Erie County, Ostrowski, J. — venue.) Present — Dillon, P. J., Denman, Balio, Lawton and Davis, JJ.

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

— Order unanimously affirmed without costs. Memorandum: Third-party defendant’s motion for a change of venue was properly denied. The sole ground for this motion was that the action was not properly brought in Kings County (CPLR 510 [1]). Venue was properly laid in Kings County as it is plaintiffs residence (CPLR 503, 509). We do not [860]*860consider third-party defendant’s claim, made for the first time on appeal, that venue should be changed to Erie County for the convenience of material witnesses and to promote the ends of justice (see, CPLR 510 [3]; Pietropaoli Trucking v Nationwide Mut. Ins. Co., 100 AD2d 680, 681). Further, a motion on these grounds must be brought in the county where venue is laid or as authorized by CPLR 2212 (a) (2 Weinstein-KornMiller, NY Civ Prac ¶ 510.10). (Appeal from order of Supreme Court, Erie County, Ostrowski, J. — venue.) Present — Dillon, P. J., Denman, Balio, Lawton and Davis, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

134 A.D.2d 859, 522 N.Y.S.2d 44, 1987 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 51044, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/boykin-management-co-v-watson-co-nyappdiv-1987.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack