Fortune v. Palomino
This text of 287 A.D.2d 361 (Fortune v. Palomino) 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.
Opinion
—Order, Supreme Court, Bronx [362]*362County (Bertram Katz, J.), entered February 15, 2001, which denied plaintiffs’ motion to reargue a prior order, same court and Justice, entered December 6, 2000, insofar as appealed granting defendant’s cross motion to change venue from Bronx County to New York County, unanimously modified, on the law and the facts, to deem plaintiffs’ motion to reargue as one to renew, to grant renewal, and, upon renewal, to adhere to the prior order changing venue, and otherwise affirmed, without costs. Appeal from the order of December 6, 2000, unanimously dismissed, without costs, as moot.
We grant renewal because the motion court apparently did not receive plaintiffs’ opposition papers to defendant’s cross motion to change venue, through no fault of plaintiffs. Upon renewal, we find that plaintiffs’ deposition testimony leaves no question that both had completed their move from Bronx County to New York County before commencement of the action. Accordingly, Bronx County is not a proper venue (CPLR 503 [a]; 510 [1]). Concur — Sullivan, P. J., Andrias, Wallach, Saxe and Marlow, JJ.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
287 A.D.2d 361, 731 N.Y.S.2d 440, 2001 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 9886, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/fortune-v-palomino-nyappdiv-2001.