Hairston v. Metro-North Commuter Railroad

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Hairston v. Metro-North Commuter Railroad

259 A.D.2d 370, 687 N.Y.S.2d 58, 1999 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 2787

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

DecidedMarch 18, 1999

StatusPublished

This text of 259 A.D.2d 370 (Hairston v. Metro-North Commuter Railroad) 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

Hairston v. Metro-North Commuter Railroad, 259 A.D.2d 370, 687 N.Y.S.2d 58, 1999 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 2787 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1999).

Pincite

Opinion

Order, Supreme Court, Bronx County (Luis Gonzalez, J.), entered on or about January 20, 1998, which granted defendant Metro-North Commuter Railroad’s motion pursuant to CPLR 505 (a), to transfer venue of plaintiffs action to New York County, unanimously affirmed, with costs.

The motion court properly determined that the venue of this action commenced in State court under the Federal Employers’ Liability Act (FELA) is properly placed in New York County pursuant to CPLR 505 (a). It is well settled that when an action is brought under FELA in State courts, the State venue provisions apply and that the venue section of FELA (45 USC § 56), is inapplicable (see, Barton v Delaware, Lackawanna & W. R. R. Co., 218 App Div 748; Rodriguez v Grand Trunk W. R. R. Co., 120 Mich App 599, 328 NW2d 89; Garland v Seaboard Coastline R. R. Co., 658 SW2d 528, 531 [Tenn]; Hopmann v Southern Pac. Transp. Co., 581 SW2d 532 [Tex], cert denied 444 US 870). Concur — Rosenberger, J. P., Williams, Tom and Mazzarelli, JJ.

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

Order, Supreme Court, Bronx County (Luis Gonzalez, J.), entered on or about January 20, 1998, which granted defendant Metro-North Commuter Railroad’s motion pursuant to CPLR 505 (a), to transfer venue of plaintiffs action to New York County, unanimously affirmed, with costs.

The motion court properly determined that the venue of this action commenced in State court under the Federal Employers’ Liability Act (FELA) is properly placed in New York County pursuant to CPLR 505 (a). It is well settled that when an action is brought under FELA in State courts, the State venue provisions apply and that the venue section of FELA (45 USC § 56), is inapplicable (see, Barton v Delaware, Lackawanna & W. R. R. Co., 218 App Div 748; Rodriguez v Grand Trunk W. R. R. Co., 120 Mich App 599, 328 NW2d 89; Garland v Seaboard Coastline R. R. Co., 658 SW2d 528, 531 [Tenn]; Hopmann v Southern Pac. Transp. Co., 581 SW2d 532 [Tex], cert denied 444 US 870). Concur — Rosenberger, J. P., Williams, Tom and Mazzarelli, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

259 A.D.2d 370, 687 N.Y.S.2d 58, 1999 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 2787, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/hairston-v-metro-north-commuter-railroad-nyappdiv-1999.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack