Carvel Court Realty Co. v. Jonas

195 A.D. 662, 186 N.Y.S. 802, 1921 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4813
CourtAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York
DecidedMarch 2, 1921
StatusPublished
Cited by9 cases

This text of 195 A.D. 662 (Carvel Court Realty Co. v. Jonas) 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
Carvel Court Realty Co. v. Jonas, 195 A.D. 662, 186 N.Y.S. 802, 1921 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4813 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1921).

Opinion

Woodward, J.:

The plaintiff brings this action to recover rent for the month of October, 1920, upon premises located in the city of New York. The corporation has changed its principal place of business under the provisions of the Stock Corporation Law (§ 13, as amd. by Laws of 1915, chap. 117) and brings this action in Greene county. The defendant moves for a change of venue upon the ground that .the action should have been brought in the county of New York, and upon the further ground of the convenience of witnesses. On a motion of this character a domestic corporation is deemed to have its residence in the county in which it has its principal office (Finch School v. Finch, 144 App. Div. 687; Rubel v. Central Railroad Co. of N. J., 171 id. 456), and the plaintiff having acted under the statute, it must be deemed to be lawfully a resident of Greene county and entitled to bring the action there.

The affidavits in support of the alleged convenience of witnesses are lacking in essential elements. It does not appear that the many alleged witnesses know anything about the [664]*664particular contract; they are defendants in similar actions, but there is nothing to show that they are material witnesses in reference to any fact in issue in this particular case.

While the rule is not absolute, it is the general practice to decline to order the trial of causes in the city of New York where they may be properly tried in rural counties, and the discretion of the court in this regard ought not to be interfered with in the absence of controlling reasons.

The order appealed from should be affirmed, with costs.

Order unanimously affirmed, with ten dollars costs and disbursements. ^ ■ v. ..

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

Related

In re Savage Mills, Inc.
170 F. Supp. 559 (E.D. New York, 1959)
In re the General Assignment for the Benefit of Creditors of Norma Footwear Corp.
2 A.D.2d 24 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1956)
Schoen v. Board of Education
274 A.D. 682 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1949)
Ray v. Bee Line, Inc.
180 Misc. 172 (New York Supreme Court, 1943)
In re Hillmark Associates, Inc.
47 F. Supp. 605 (S.D. New York, 1942)
Kingsboro Silk Mills, Inc. v. Auburn Fabrics, Inc.
259 A.D. 1108 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1940)
St. Regis Paper Co. v. Hano
141 Misc. 75 (New York Supreme Court, 1931)
Dairymen's League Co-Operative Ass'n v. Brundo
131 Misc. 548 (New York Supreme Court, 1927)
Gorman v. A. B. Leach & Co.
11 F.2d 454 (E.D. New York, 1926)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
195 A.D. 662, 186 N.Y.S. 802, 1921 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4813, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/carvel-court-realty-co-v-jonas-nyappdiv-1921.