Leibowitz v. Locke

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Leibowitz v. Locke

220 A.D.2d 562, 632 N.Y.S.2d 611, 1995 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 10323

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

DecidedOctober 16, 1995

StatusPublished

This text of 220 A.D.2d 562 (Leibowitz v. Locke) 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

Leibowitz v. Locke, 220 A.D.2d 562, 632 N.Y.S.2d 611, 1995 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 10323 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1995).

Pincite

Opinion

—In an action seeking an injunction and damages, inter alia, for unfair competition, the plaintiff appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Nassau County (Goldstein, J.), dated May 3, 1994, which granted the defendants’ motion to direct that the action remain in Nassau County.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.

The Supreme Court did not err in concluding that the plaintiff could not properly change the venue of his Nassau County action by the simple expedient of serving on the defendants an amended complaint pursuant to CPLR 3025 (a), designating Kings County as the place of trial. CPLR 510 provides that a court may change the venue of an action only "upon motion.” Sullivan, J. P., Miller, Copertino, Joy and Friedmann, JJ., concur.

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

—In an action seeking an injunction and damages, inter alia, for unfair competition, the plaintiff appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Nassau County (Goldstein, J.), dated May 3, 1994, which granted the defendants’ motion to direct that the action remain in Nassau County.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.

The Supreme Court did not err in concluding that the plaintiff could not properly change the venue of his Nassau County action by the simple expedient of serving on the defendants an amended complaint pursuant to CPLR 3025 (a), designating Kings County as the place of trial. CPLR 510 provides that a court may change the venue of an action only "upon motion.” Sullivan, J. P., Miller, Copertino, Joy and Friedmann, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

220 A.D.2d 562, 632 N.Y.S.2d 611, 1995 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 10323, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/leibowitz-v-locke-nyappdiv-1995.