Merendino v. Lloyd

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Merendino v. Lloyd

172 A.D.2d 594, 570 N.Y.S.2d 946, 1991 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4648

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

DecidedApril 8, 1991

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 172 A.D.2d 594 (Merendino v. Lloyd) 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

Merendino v. Lloyd, 172 A.D.2d 594, 570 N.Y.S.2d 946, 1991 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4648 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1991).

Pincite

Opinion

In an action, inter alia, to recover damages for legal malpractice and fraud, the plaintiffs appeal, as limited by their brief, from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Williams, J.), dated July 7, 1989, as granted the defendants’ cross motion to change the [595]*595venue of the action from Kings County to Richmond County and referred the plaintiffs’ motion for consolidation of the action with two related actions pending in the Supreme Court, Richmond County, to that court.

Ordered that the order is reversed insofar as appealed from, on the law, and the motion and cross motion are denied; and it is further,

Ordered that the appellants are awarded one bill of costs.

The basis of venue herein being the county of residence of the plaintiff Joseph Merendino at the time of commencement of the action, we find that venue was properly placed in Kings County in the first instance (see, CPLR 503 [a]; cf., Torriero v Austin Truck Rental, 143 AD2d 595, 596). Since the burden was on the party alleging improper venue, it was incumbent upon the defendants to produce evidence to establish that the plaintiffs residence was not in Kings County. This they failed to do. Hence, the defendants were not entitled to a change of venue as a matter of right (see, CPLR 510 [1]). Mangano, P. J., Brown, Harwood and Miller, JJ., concur.

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

In an action, inter alia, to recover damages for legal malpractice and fraud, the plaintiffs appeal, as limited by their brief, from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Williams, J.), dated July 7, 1989, as granted the defendants’ cross motion to change the [595]*595venue of the action from Kings County to Richmond County and referred the plaintiffs’ motion for consolidation of the action with two related actions pending in the Supreme Court, Richmond County, to that court.

Ordered that the order is reversed insofar as appealed from, on the law, and the motion and cross motion are denied; and it is further,

Ordered that the appellants are awarded one bill of costs.

The basis of venue herein being the county of residence of the plaintiff Joseph Merendino at the time of commencement of the action, we find that venue was properly placed in Kings County in the first instance (see, CPLR 503 [a]; cf., Torriero v Austin Truck Rental, 143 AD2d 595, 596). Since the burden was on the party alleging improper venue, it was incumbent upon the defendants to produce evidence to establish that the plaintiffs residence was not in Kings County. This they failed to do. Hence, the defendants were not entitled to a change of venue as a matter of right (see, CPLR 510 [1]). Mangano, P. J., Brown, Harwood and Miller, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

172 A.D.2d 594, 570 N.Y.S.2d 946, 1991 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4648, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/merendino-v-lloyd-nyappdiv-1991.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack