Giddings v. Century 21 Department Stores, LLC

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Giddings v. Century 21 Department Stores, LLC

124 A.D.3d 717, 998 N.Y.S.2d 645

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

DecidedJanuary 21, 2015

Docket2014-04250

StatusPublished

This text of 124 A.D.3d 717 (Giddings v. Century 21 Department Stores, LLC) 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

Giddings v. Century 21 Department Stores, LLC, 124 A.D.3d 717, 998 N.Y.S.2d 645 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2015).

Pincite

Opinion

In an action, inter alia, to recover damages for assault and battery, the defendants Century 21 Department Stores, LLC, and Century 21 Stores, LLC, appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Silber, J.), dated March 20, 2014, which denied their motion pursuant to CPLR 510 (1) to change the venue of the action from Kings County to New York County.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.

A demand to change venue based on the designation of an improper county (see CPLR 510 [1]) “shall be served with the answer or before the answer is served” (CPLR 511 [a]; see Carobert v Baldor Elec. Co., 102 AD3d 905, 906 [2013]; Thomas v Guttikonda, 68 AD3d 853, 854 [2009]). “Thereafter the defendant may move to change the place of trial within [15] days *718 after service of the demand” (CPLR 511 [b]). Since the appellants failed to serve a timely demand for a change of venue and failed to make a motion for that relief within the statutory time period, they were not entitled to a change of venue as of right, and their motion became one addressed to the court’s discretion (see Carobert v Baldor Elec. Co., 102 AD3d at 906; Thomas v Guttikonda, 68 AD3d at 854; Obas v Grappell, 43 AD3d 431 [2007]). Here, the Supreme Court did not improvidently exercise its discretion in denying the appellants’ motion.

The appellants’ remaining contention is without merit.

Dillon, J.E, Dickerson, Roman and Sgroi, JJ., concur.

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

In an action, inter alia, to recover damages for assault and battery, the defendants Century 21 Department Stores, LLC, and Century 21 Stores, LLC, appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Silber, J.), dated March 20, 2014, which denied their motion pursuant to CPLR 510 (1) to change the venue of the action from Kings County to New York County.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.

A demand to change venue based on the designation of an improper county (see CPLR 510 [1]) “shall be served with the answer or before the answer is served” (CPLR 511 [a]; see Carobert v Baldor Elec. Co., 102 AD3d 905, 906 [2013]; Thomas v Guttikonda, 68 AD3d 853, 854 [2009]). “Thereafter the defendant may move to change the place of trial within [15] days *718 after service of the demand” (CPLR 511 [b]). Since the appellants failed to serve a timely demand for a change of venue and failed to make a motion for that relief within the statutory time period, they were not entitled to a change of venue as of right, and their motion became one addressed to the court’s discretion (see Carobert v Baldor Elec. Co., 102 AD3d at 906; Thomas v Guttikonda, 68 AD3d at 854; Obas v Grappell, 43 AD3d 431 [2007]). Here, the Supreme Court did not improvidently exercise its discretion in denying the appellants’ motion.

The appellants’ remaining contention is without merit.

Dillon, J.E, Dickerson, Roman and Sgroi, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

124 A.D.3d 717, 998 N.Y.S.2d 645, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/giddings-v-century-21-department-stores-llc-nyappdiv-2015.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack