Broderick v. R.Y. Management Co.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Broderick v. R.Y. Management Co.

13 A.D.3d 197, 786 N.Y.S.2d 484, 2004 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 15367

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York·Decided December 16, 2004·Published·Cited by 5 cases

Opinion

Order, Supreme Court, Bronx County (Stanley Green, J.), entered March 9, 2004, which denied defendants’ motion to change the venue of this action from Bronx County to New York County, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

There was insufficient evidence to substantiate defendants’ contention that venue had been improperly placed in Bronx County. We note in particular that although William Condren, a general partner in defendant Grote Street Associates, averred that Grote Street’s principal and only office was in New York County, there was no documentary evidence offered to confirm that assertion. Indeed, the documentary evidence adduced by plaintiffs, showing that Grote Street Associates maintained offices at two Bronx locations, read together with defendant’s disingenuous attempt to explain away the contents of the first Condren affidavit, demonstrates that the IAS court properly denied defendants’ motion. Concur—Williams, J.E, Marlow, Gonzalez, Sweeny and Catterson, JJ.

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

Order, Supreme Court, Bronx County (Stanley Green, J.), entered March 9, 2004, which denied defendants’ motion to change the venue of this action from Bronx County to New York County, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

There was insufficient evidence to substantiate defendants’ contention that venue had been improperly placed in Bronx County. We note in particular that although William Condren, a general partner in defendant Grote Street Associates, averred that Grote Street’s principal and only office was in New York County, there was no documentary evidence offered to confirm that assertion. Indeed, the documentary evidence adduced by plaintiffs, showing that Grote Street Associates maintained offices at two Bronx locations, read together with defendant’s disingenuous attempt to explain away the contents of the first Condren affidavit, demonstrates that the IAS court properly denied defendants’ motion. Concur—Williams, J.E, Marlow, Gonzalez, Sweeny and Catterson, JJ.

Broderick v. R.Y. Management Co., 13 A.D.3d 197, 786 N.Y.S.2d 484, 2004 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 15367 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2004).

Pincite

13 A.D.3d 197 (Broderick v. R.Y. Management Co.) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related