Crucen v. Pepsi-Cola Bottling Co. of N.Y., Inc.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Crucen v. Pepsi-Cola Bottling Co. of N.Y., Inc.

139 A.D.3d 538, 30 N.Y.S.3d 554

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York·Decided May 19, 2016·No. 1193 300627/15·Published·Cited by 5 cases

Opinion

*539 Order, Supreme Court, Bronx County (Alison Y. Tuitt, J.), entered May 18, 2015, which, in this action for personal injuries, denied defendant’s motion to change venue from Bronx County to Westchester County pursuant to CPLR 510 (1), unanimously reversed, on the law, without costs, and the motion granted.

In support of its motion, defendant, a foreign corporation, submitted a certified copy of its application for authority to do business filed with the Secretary of State in which it stated that its principal place of business “is to be located” in New York County. Defendant’s designation of New York County as its principal place of business in the application for authority is controlling for venue purposes (see Johanson v J.B. Hunt Transp., Inc., 15 AD3d 268 [1st Dept 2005]; Kochany v Chrysler Corp., 67 AD2d 637 [1st Dept 1979]; CPLR 503 [c]). Contrary to plaintiff’s arguments, even if defendant does not actually have an office in New York County, and although it has notified the Department of State to forward process to an address in Bronx County, the designation made by defendant in its application for authority still controls for venue purposes (see Job v Subaru Leasing Corp., 30 AD3d 159 [1st Dept 2006]; Nadle v L.O. Realty Corp., 286 AD2d 130 [1st Dept 2001]).

Defendant’s choice of Westchester County, where plaintiff resides and where the accident took place, as the place for trial is proper.

Concur — Sweeny, J.P, Renwick, Andrias, Kapnick and Kahn, JJ.

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

*539 Order, Supreme Court, Bronx County (Alison Y. Tuitt, J.), entered May 18, 2015, which, in this action for personal injuries, denied defendant’s motion to change venue from Bronx County to Westchester County pursuant to CPLR 510 (1), unanimously reversed, on the law, without costs, and the motion granted.

In support of its motion, defendant, a foreign corporation, submitted a certified copy of its application for authority to do business filed with the Secretary of State in which it stated that its principal place of business “is to be located” in New York County. Defendant’s designation of New York County as its principal place of business in the application for authority is controlling for venue purposes (see Johanson v J.B. Hunt Transp., Inc., 15 AD3d 268 [1st Dept 2005]; Kochany v Chrysler Corp., 67 AD2d 637 [1st Dept 1979]; CPLR 503 [c]). Contrary to plaintiff’s arguments, even if defendant does not actually have an office in New York County, and although it has notified the Department of State to forward process to an address in Bronx County, the designation made by defendant in its application for authority still controls for venue purposes (see Job v Subaru Leasing Corp., 30 AD3d 159 [1st Dept 2006]; Nadle v L.O. Realty Corp., 286 AD2d 130 [1st Dept 2001]).

Defendant’s choice of Westchester County, where plaintiff resides and where the accident took place, as the place for trial is proper.

Concur — Sweeny, J.P, Renwick, Andrias, Kapnick and Kahn, JJ.

Crucen v. Pepsi-Cola Bottling Co. of N.Y., Inc., 139 A.D.3d 538, 30 N.Y.S.3d 554 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2016).

Pincite

139 A.D.3d 538 (Crucen v. Pepsi-Cola Bottling Co. of N.Y., Inc.) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related