Kallas v. Costello

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Kallas v. Costello

90 A.D.3d 997, 934 N.Y.2d 860

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

DecidedDecember 27, 2011

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 90 A.D.3d 997 (Kallas v. Costello) 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

Kallas v. Costello, 90 A.D.3d 997, 934 N.Y.2d 860 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2011).

Pincite

Opinion

The Supreme Court improvidently exercised its discretion in granting the defendant’s motion for a change of venue from Kings County to Orange County, since the defendant’s motion to change venue, based upon an allegedly improper county, was not served within 15 days after service of his demand for a change of venue (see CPLR 511 [b]; Wilkerson v 134 Kitty’s Corp., 49 AD3d 718 [2008]; Parks v Costco Wholesale Member[998]*998ship, Inc., 19 AD3d 570 [2005]), and there is nothing in the record which suggests that this case falls within the narrow exception to the rule (compare Brash v Richards, 87 AD3d 556 [2011]; Accardi v Kaufmann, 82 AD3d 803 [2011]). Mastro, A.EJ., Balkin, Chambers and Sgroi, JJ., concur.

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

The Supreme Court improvidently exercised its discretion in granting the defendant’s motion for a change of venue from Kings County to Orange County, since the defendant’s motion to change venue, based upon an allegedly improper county, was not served within 15 days after service of his demand for a change of venue (see CPLR 511 [b]; Wilkerson v 134 Kitty’s Corp., 49 AD3d 718 [2008]; Parks v Costco Wholesale Member[998]*998ship, Inc., 19 AD3d 570 [2005]), and there is nothing in the record which suggests that this case falls within the narrow exception to the rule (compare Brash v Richards, 87 AD3d 556 [2011]; Accardi v Kaufmann, 82 AD3d 803 [2011]). Mastro, A.EJ., Balkin, Chambers and Sgroi, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

90 A.D.3d 997, 934 N.Y.2d 860, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/kallas-v-costello-nyappdiv-2011.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack