Harley v. Miller

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Harley v. Miller

295 A.D.2d 401, 743 N.Y.S.2d 316, 2002 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 6081

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

DecidedJune 10, 2002

StatusPublished

Cited by9 cases

This text of 295 A.D.2d 401 (Harley v. Miller) 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

Harley v. Miller, 295 A.D.2d 401, 743 N.Y.S.2d 316, 2002 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 6081 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2002).

Pincite

Opinion

—In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, the defendants appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Suffolk County (Doyle, J.), dated November 29, 2001, which denied their motion pursuant to CPLR 510 (1) to change the venue of the action from Kings County to Suffolk County.

, Ordered that the order is reversed on the law, the motion is granted, and the venue of the action is changed from Kings County to Suffolk County; and it is further,

Ordered that the Clerk of the Supreme Court, Kings County, is directed to deliver to the Clerk of the Supreme Court, Suffolk County, all of the papers filed in the action and certified copies of all minutes and entries (see CPLR 511); and it is further,

Ordered that one bill of costs is awarded to the defendants.

On July 5, 2000, the plaintiff and the defendants were involved in an automobile accident. The police accident report, the police field report, the hospital records, and the plaintiff’s health insurance claim form indicated that the plaintiff resided in Suffolk County. Approximately one year later, upon the filing of a summons and complaint in Supreme Court, Kings County, the plaintiff commenced this action for personal injuries, claiming to be a resident of Kings County. The Supreme Court denied the defendants’ subsequent and timely motion pursuant to CPLR 510 (1) to change venue to Suffolk County.

The Supreme Court erred in denying the motion. Aside from a conclusory statement in his affidavit that he resided at an address in Kings County, the plaintiff failed to establish through documentary evidence that he resided in Kangs County at the time he commenced the action (see Senzon v Uveges, 265 AD2d 476; Labissiere v Roland, 231 AD2d 687; Martinez v Semicevic, 178 AD2d 228). Accordingly, the defendants are entitled to a change of venue.

[402]*402The respondent’s remaining contentions are without merit. Prudenti, P.J., S. Miller, O’Brien, McGinity and Crane, 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 defendants appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Suffolk County (Doyle, J.), dated November 29, 2001, which denied their motion pursuant to CPLR 510 (1) to change the venue of the action from Kings County to Suffolk County.

, Ordered that the order is reversed on the law, the motion is granted, and the venue of the action is changed from Kings County to Suffolk County; and it is further,

Ordered that the Clerk of the Supreme Court, Kings County, is directed to deliver to the Clerk of the Supreme Court, Suffolk County, all of the papers filed in the action and certified copies of all minutes and entries (see CPLR 511); and it is further,

Ordered that one bill of costs is awarded to the defendants.

On July 5, 2000, the plaintiff and the defendants were involved in an automobile accident. The police accident report, the police field report, the hospital records, and the plaintiff’s health insurance claim form indicated that the plaintiff resided in Suffolk County. Approximately one year later, upon the filing of a summons and complaint in Supreme Court, Kings County, the plaintiff commenced this action for personal injuries, claiming to be a resident of Kings County. The Supreme Court denied the defendants’ subsequent and timely motion pursuant to CPLR 510 (1) to change venue to Suffolk County.

The Supreme Court erred in denying the motion. Aside from a conclusory statement in his affidavit that he resided at an address in Kings County, the plaintiff failed to establish through documentary evidence that he resided in Kangs County at the time he commenced the action (see Senzon v Uveges, 265 AD2d 476; Labissiere v Roland, 231 AD2d 687; Martinez v Semicevic, 178 AD2d 228). Accordingly, the defendants are entitled to a change of venue.

[402]*402The respondent’s remaining contentions are without merit. Prudenti, P.J., S. Miller, O’Brien, McGinity and Crane, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

295 A.D.2d 401, 743 N.Y.S.2d 316, 2002 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 6081, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/harley-v-miller-nyappdiv-2002.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack