Garrow v. Holcombe

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Garrow v. Holcombe

56 A.D.2d 671, 391 N.Y.S.2d 481, 1977 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 10822

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

DecidedFebruary 10, 1977

StatusPublished

This text of 56 A.D.2d 671 (Garrow v. Holcombe) 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

Garrow v. Holcombe, 56 A.D.2d 671, 391 N.Y.S.2d 481, 1977 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 10822 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1977).

Pincite

Opinion

Appeal from an order of the Supreme Court at Special Term, entered August 29, 1975 in Clinton County, which granted the cross motion of defendant Armani for a change of venue from Clinton to Onondaga County pursuant to CPLR 510 (subd 1), and denied plaintiff’s cross motion for the entry of a default judgment and allied relief against the defendant Holcombe. In our opinion the plaintiff has failed to establish that he was a resident of Clinton County for the purpose of venue (cf. Bradley v Plaisted, 277 App Div 620). Having determined that the venue should be changed, the order of Special Term should have been without prejudice to a renewal of plaintiff’s motion for a default judgment. We do not in this proceeding pass upon the sufficiency of the complaint or the merits of plaintiff’s alleged cause of action. Order modified, on the law and the facts, by amending the last decretal paragraph thereof to provide that the denial of plaintiff’s application for default judgment is without prejudice to a renewal thereof in Onondaga County, and, as so modified, affirmed, without costs. Greenblott, J. P., Sweeney, Main, Larkin and Herlihy, JJ., concur.

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

Appeal from an order of the Supreme Court at Special Term, entered August 29, 1975 in Clinton County, which granted the cross motion of defendant Armani for a change of venue from Clinton to Onondaga County pursuant to CPLR 510 (subd 1), and denied plaintiff’s cross motion for the entry of a default judgment and allied relief against the defendant Holcombe. In our opinion the plaintiff has failed to establish that he was a resident of Clinton County for the purpose of venue (cf. Bradley v Plaisted, 277 App Div 620). Having determined that the venue should be changed, the order of Special Term should have been without prejudice to a renewal of plaintiff’s motion for a default judgment. We do not in this proceeding pass upon the sufficiency of the complaint or the merits of plaintiff’s alleged cause of action. Order modified, on the law and the facts, by amending the last decretal paragraph thereof to provide that the denial of plaintiff’s application for default judgment is without prejudice to a renewal thereof in Onondaga County, and, as so modified, affirmed, without costs. Greenblott, J. P., Sweeney, Main, Larkin and Herlihy, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

56 A.D.2d 671, 391 N.Y.S.2d 481, 1977 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 10822, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/garrow-v-holcombe-nyappdiv-1977.