Diaz v. Clock Tower Associates, L.P.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Diaz v. Clock Tower Associates, L.P.

271 A.D.2d 290, 706 N.Y.S.2d 632, 2000 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4096

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

DecidedApril 13, 2000

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 271 A.D.2d 290 (Diaz v. Clock Tower Associates, L.P.) 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

Diaz v. Clock Tower Associates, L.P., 271 A.D.2d 290, 706 N.Y.S.2d 632, 2000 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4096 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2000).

Pincite

Opinion

—Order, Supreme Court, Bronx County (George Friedman, J.), entered October 20, 1999, which denied defendant’s motion to change venue to Putnam County on the ground that the Bronx is not a proper county, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

The motion, which was made approximately eight months after plaintiff’s deposition at which defendant learned of plaintiffs alleged true residence in Putnam County, was properly denied on the ground that it was not made promptly after such deposition (see, Runcie v Cross County Shopping Mall, 268 AD2d 577; cf., Horowicz v RSD Transp., 249 AD2d 511; compare, Philogene v Fuller Auto Leasing, 167 AD2d 178, 179). We would also note that there is no explanation as to why plaintiffs deposition was not conducted until more than two years after the action was commenced. Concur — Wallach, J. P., Lerner, Rubin and Buckley, JJ.

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

—Order, Supreme Court, Bronx County (George Friedman, J.), entered October 20, 1999, which denied defendant’s motion to change venue to Putnam County on the ground that the Bronx is not a proper county, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

The motion, which was made approximately eight months after plaintiff’s deposition at which defendant learned of plaintiffs alleged true residence in Putnam County, was properly denied on the ground that it was not made promptly after such deposition (see, Runcie v Cross County Shopping Mall, 268 AD2d 577; cf., Horowicz v RSD Transp., 249 AD2d 511; compare, Philogene v Fuller Auto Leasing, 167 AD2d 178, 179). We would also note that there is no explanation as to why plaintiffs deposition was not conducted until more than two years after the action was commenced. Concur — Wallach, J. P., Lerner, Rubin and Buckley, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

271 A.D.2d 290, 706 N.Y.S.2d 632, 2000 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4096, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/diaz-v-clock-tower-associates-lp-nyappdiv-2000.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack