Marin v. Levin Properties, L.P.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Marin v. Levin Properties, L.P.

306 A.D.2d 256, 760 N.Y.S.2d 509

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

DecidedJune 2, 2003

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 306 A.D.2d 256 (Marin v. Levin Properties, L.P.) 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

Marin v. Levin Properties, L.P., 306 A.D.2d 256, 760 N.Y.S.2d 509 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2003).

Pincite

Opinion

—In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, the plaintiff appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Harkavy, J.), dated June 18, 2002, which granted the defendants’ motion to change venue of the action from Kings County to Suffolk County.

Ordered that the order is reversed, with costs, the motion is denied, and the Clerk of the Supreme Court, Suffolk County, is directed to deliver to the Clerk of the Supreme Court, Kings County, all papers filed in this action and certified copies of all minutes and entries (see CPLR 511 [d]).

The Supreme Court erred in granting the defendants’ motion to change venue of the action from Kings County to Suffolk County. Contrary to the defendants’ contention, the plaintiff properly placed venue of this action in Kings County. Since the record establishes that none of the parties resided in the state at the time the action was commenced, the plaintiff was free to designate any county for venue (see CPLR 503 [a]). In addition, the defendants failed to establish the criteria needed to demonstrate their entitlement to a change of venue based on the convenience of material witnesses pursuant to CPLR 510 (3) (see O’Brien v Vassar Bros. Hosp., 207 AD2d 169, 172-173 [1995]). There being no other claimed basis to change venue, the motion should have been denied. Altman, J.P., Krausman, Gold-stein, H. Miller 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 plaintiff appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Harkavy, J.), dated June 18, 2002, which granted the defendants’ motion to change venue of the action from Kings County to Suffolk County.

Ordered that the order is reversed, with costs, the motion is denied, and the Clerk of the Supreme Court, Suffolk County, is directed to deliver to the Clerk of the Supreme Court, Kings County, all papers filed in this action and certified copies of all minutes and entries (see CPLR 511 [d]).

The Supreme Court erred in granting the defendants’ motion to change venue of the action from Kings County to Suffolk County. Contrary to the defendants’ contention, the plaintiff properly placed venue of this action in Kings County. Since the record establishes that none of the parties resided in the state at the time the action was commenced, the plaintiff was free to designate any county for venue (see CPLR 503 [a]). In addition, the defendants failed to establish the criteria needed to demonstrate their entitlement to a change of venue based on the convenience of material witnesses pursuant to CPLR 510 (3) (see O’Brien v Vassar Bros. Hosp., 207 AD2d 169, 172-173 [1995]). There being no other claimed basis to change venue, the motion should have been denied. Altman, J.P., Krausman, Gold-stein, H. Miller and Crane, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

306 A.D.2d 256, 760 N.Y.S.2d 509, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/marin-v-levin-properties-lp-nyappdiv-2003.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack