Johnson v. Gioia

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Johnson v. Gioia

38 A.D.3d 845, 835 N.Y.S.2d 208

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

DecidedMarch 27, 2007

StatusPublished

Cited by4 cases

This text of 38 A.D.3d 845 (Johnson v. Gioia) 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

Johnson v. Gioia, 38 A.D.3d 845, 835 N.Y.S.2d 208 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2007).

Pincite

Opinion

In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, the plaintiff appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Knipel, J.), dated July 5, 2006, which granted the defendants’ motion to transfer venue of this action from Kings County to Nassau County pursuant to CPLR 510 and 511.

Ordered that the order is reversed, on the law, with costs, and the matter is remitted to the Supreme Court, Kings County, for a hearing in accordance herewith, and thereafter for a new determination of the motion.

The plaintiff selected Kings County as the venue of this action based on her purported residence (see CPLR 503 [a]). The defendants moved to transfer venue (see CPLR 511), presenting evidence that the plaintiff did not reside in Kings County when she commenced this action. In her opposition papers, the plaintiff submitted, among other things, a vehicle registration document, a phone bill, a bank statement, and a tax return form, which collectively raised an issue of fact as to whether she resided in Kings County at the time of commencement of this action. Since this issue of fact could not properly have been resolved on the papers alone, the Supreme Court should have held a hearing on the issue of residency (see Ramondi v Paramount Leasehold, L.P., 37 AD3d 447 [2007]). Schmidt, J.P, Krausman, Goldstein, Covello and Angiolillo, 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 plaintiff appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Knipel, J.), dated July 5, 2006, which granted the defendants’ motion to transfer venue of this action from Kings County to Nassau County pursuant to CPLR 510 and 511.

Ordered that the order is reversed, on the law, with costs, and the matter is remitted to the Supreme Court, Kings County, for a hearing in accordance herewith, and thereafter for a new determination of the motion.

The plaintiff selected Kings County as the venue of this action based on her purported residence (see CPLR 503 [a]). The defendants moved to transfer venue (see CPLR 511), presenting evidence that the plaintiff did not reside in Kings County when she commenced this action. In her opposition papers, the plaintiff submitted, among other things, a vehicle registration document, a phone bill, a bank statement, and a tax return form, which collectively raised an issue of fact as to whether she resided in Kings County at the time of commencement of this action. Since this issue of fact could not properly have been resolved on the papers alone, the Supreme Court should have held a hearing on the issue of residency (see Ramondi v Paramount Leasehold, L.P., 37 AD3d 447 [2007]). Schmidt, J.P, Krausman, Goldstein, Covello and Angiolillo, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

38 A.D.3d 845, 835 N.Y.S.2d 208, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/johnson-v-gioia-nyappdiv-2007.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack