Garcia v. Anderson

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Garcia v. Anderson

24 A.D.3d 415, 804 N.Y.S.2d 685

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York·Decided December 5, 2005·Published

Opinion

In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, the defendant appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Kramer, J.), entered December 10, 2004, which denied his motion pursuant to CFLR 511 to change venue of this action from ICings County to Suffolk County.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.

The defendant moved pursuant to CFLR 511 to change venue as of right from Kings County to Suffolk County on the basis that both parties resided in Suffolk County (see CFLR 503 [a]). In opposition, the plaintiff established that he resided in Kings County at the time he commenced this action (see Ellis v Wirshba, 18 AD3d 805 [2005]; compare Harley v Miller, 295 AD2d 401 [2002]; Senzon v Uveges, 265 AD2d 476 [1999]; Labissiere v Roland, 231 AD2d 687 [1996]). Accordingly, the Supreme Court properly denied the defendant’s motion. Adams, J.P., Ritter, Goldstein, Skelos and Dillon, JJ., concur.

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

In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, the defendant appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Kramer, J.), entered December 10, 2004, which denied his motion pursuant to CFLR 511 to change venue of this action from ICings County to Suffolk County.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.

The defendant moved pursuant to CFLR 511 to change venue as of right from Kings County to Suffolk County on the basis that both parties resided in Suffolk County (see CFLR 503 [a]). In opposition, the plaintiff established that he resided in Kings County at the time he commenced this action (see Ellis v Wirshba, 18 AD3d 805 [2005]; compare Harley v Miller, 295 AD2d 401 [2002]; Senzon v Uveges, 265 AD2d 476 [1999]; Labissiere v Roland, 231 AD2d 687 [1996]). Accordingly, the Supreme Court properly denied the defendant’s motion. Adams, J.P., Ritter, Goldstein, Skelos and Dillon, JJ., concur.

Garcia v. Anderson, 24 A.D.3d 415, 804 N.Y.S.2d 685 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2005).

Pincite

24 A.D.3d 415 (Garcia v. Anderson) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related