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

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

DecidedDecember 16, 2004

StatusPublished

Cited by5 cases

This text of 13 A.D.3d 197 (Broderick v. R.Y. Management 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

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

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.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

13 A.D.3d 197, 786 N.Y.S.2d 484, 2004 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 15367, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/broderick-v-ry-management-co-nyappdiv-2004.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack