Mejia v. J. Crew Operating Corp.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Mejia v. J. Crew Operating Corp.

140 A.D.3d 505, 32 N.Y.S.3d 491

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

DecidedJune 14, 2016

Docket1454N 24173/14

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 140 A.D.3d 505 (Mejia v. J. Crew Operating Corp.) 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

Mejia v. J. Crew Operating Corp., 140 A.D.3d 505, 32 N.Y.S.3d 491 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2016).

Pincite

Opinion

*506 Order, Supreme Court, Bronx County (Fernando Tapia, J.), entered July 8, 2015, which granted the motion of defendants J. Crew Operating Corp. and Global Facility Management & Construction to change venue from Bronx County to Richmond County, unanimously reversed, on the law and the facts, without costs, and the motion denied.

As an initial matter, Supreme Court erred by treating defendants’ motion to change venue as of right under CPLR 510 (1) as having been made under CPLR 510 (3).

Unless otherwise prescribed, venue is properly laid in the county where one of the parties resides when the action is commenced (CPLR 503 [a]). In making the motion under CPLR 510 (1), defendants, as movants, assumed the burden to establish that plaintiff improperly designated Bronx County as the venue (see Fiallos v New York Univ. Hosp., 85 AD3d 678 [1st Dept 2011]). Defendants’ proof indicates that when seeking treatment at Lincoln Hospital on April 10, 2014, plaintiff gave a Richmond County address. However, that evidence does not demonstrate where plaintiff resided when this action was commenced five months later, in September 2014 (see id.; Corea v Browne, 45 AD3d 623 [2d Dept 2007]).

In view of defendants’ failure to meet their initial burden, it is unnecessary to consider the sufficiency of plaintiff’s opposition to the motion (see e.g. Winegrad v New York Univ. Med. Ctr., 64 NY2d 851, 853 [1985.]).

Concur — Friedman, J.P., Sweeny, Webber and Gesmer, JJ.

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

*506 Order, Supreme Court, Bronx County (Fernando Tapia, J.), entered July 8, 2015, which granted the motion of defendants J. Crew Operating Corp. and Global Facility Management & Construction to change venue from Bronx County to Richmond County, unanimously reversed, on the law and the facts, without costs, and the motion denied.

As an initial matter, Supreme Court erred by treating defendants’ motion to change venue as of right under CPLR 510 (1) as having been made under CPLR 510 (3).

Unless otherwise prescribed, venue is properly laid in the county where one of the parties resides when the action is commenced (CPLR 503 [a]). In making the motion under CPLR 510 (1), defendants, as movants, assumed the burden to establish that plaintiff improperly designated Bronx County as the venue (see Fiallos v New York Univ. Hosp., 85 AD3d 678 [1st Dept 2011]). Defendants’ proof indicates that when seeking treatment at Lincoln Hospital on April 10, 2014, plaintiff gave a Richmond County address. However, that evidence does not demonstrate where plaintiff resided when this action was commenced five months later, in September 2014 (see id.; Corea v Browne, 45 AD3d 623 [2d Dept 2007]).

In view of defendants’ failure to meet their initial burden, it is unnecessary to consider the sufficiency of plaintiff’s opposition to the motion (see e.g. Winegrad v New York Univ. Med. Ctr., 64 NY2d 851, 853 [1985.]).

Concur — Friedman, J.P., Sweeny, Webber and Gesmer, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

140 A.D.3d 505, 32 N.Y.S.3d 491, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/mejia-v-j-crew-operating-corp-nyappdiv-2016.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack