Hughes v. Pacienza

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Hughes v. Pacienza

68 A.D.3d 930, 890 N.Y.2d 327

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

DecidedDecember 15, 2009

StatusPublished

This text of 68 A.D.3d 930 (Hughes v. Pacienza) 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

Hughes v. Pacienza, 68 A.D.3d 930, 890 N.Y.2d 327 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2009).

Pincite

Opinion

The Supreme Court providently exercised its discretion in granting that branch of the motion of the plaintiff in action No. 1 to transfer venue of that action from Nassau County to Kings County, since action No. 2 was commenced in Kings County prior to the commencement of action No. 1 in Nassau County (see Strasser v Neuringer, 137 AD2d 750, 751 [1988]), and the defendants failed to demonstrate the existence of circumstances which would have warranted transferring venue out of Kings County (see Gonzalez v Jian Ming Zhou, 270 AD2d 387 [2000]; cf. Gomez v Jersey Coast Egg Producers, 186 AD2d 629, 630 [1992]).

The defendants’ contentions regarding their separate motions to stay all proceedings pending the determination of a criminal action against the defendant Vincent M. Pacienza, and to quash a subpoena duces tecum that had been served upon a nonparty, are not properly before us, as the Supreme Court did not decide those motions and expressly referred them to the Supreme Court, Kings County, for determination (see Hawkins-Bond v Konefsky, 48 AD3d 417 [2008]; Katz v Katz, 68 AD2d 536, 542-543 [1979]).

[931]*931The defendants’ remaining contentions are without merit. Fisher, J.P., Santucci, Dickerson, Chambers and Lott, JJ., concur.

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

The Supreme Court providently exercised its discretion in granting that branch of the motion of the plaintiff in action No. 1 to transfer venue of that action from Nassau County to Kings County, since action No. 2 was commenced in Kings County prior to the commencement of action No. 1 in Nassau County (see Strasser v Neuringer, 137 AD2d 750, 751 [1988]), and the defendants failed to demonstrate the existence of circumstances which would have warranted transferring venue out of Kings County (see Gonzalez v Jian Ming Zhou, 270 AD2d 387 [2000]; cf. Gomez v Jersey Coast Egg Producers, 186 AD2d 629, 630 [1992]).

The defendants’ contentions regarding their separate motions to stay all proceedings pending the determination of a criminal action against the defendant Vincent M. Pacienza, and to quash a subpoena duces tecum that had been served upon a nonparty, are not properly before us, as the Supreme Court did not decide those motions and expressly referred them to the Supreme Court, Kings County, for determination (see Hawkins-Bond v Konefsky, 48 AD3d 417 [2008]; Katz v Katz, 68 AD2d 536, 542-543 [1979]).

[931]*931The defendants’ remaining contentions are without merit. Fisher, J.P., Santucci, Dickerson, Chambers and Lott, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

68 A.D.3d 930, 890 N.Y.2d 327, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/hughes-v-pacienza-nyappdiv-2009.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack