Moumouni v. Tappen Park Associates, Inc.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Moumouni v. Tappen Park Associates, Inc.

118 A.D.3d 427, 987 N.Y.S.2d 64

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

DecidedJune 3, 2014

StatusPublished

This text of 118 A.D.3d 427 (Moumouni v. Tappen Park Associates, Inc.) 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

Moumouni v. Tappen Park Associates, Inc., 118 A.D.3d 427, 987 N.Y.S.2d 64 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2014).

Pincite

Opinion

Order, Supreme Court, Bronx County (John Barone, J.), entered October 23, 2012, which denied defendants’ motion pursuant to CPLR 510 (3) to change venue to Richmond County, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

Plaintiff properly placed venue in Bronx County, where he resides. In seeking a discretionary change of venue, defendants failed to make the required “detailed justification for such relief in the form of the identity and availability of proposed witnesses, the nature and materiality of their anticipated testimony, and the manner in which they would be inconvenienced by the initial venue” (Rodriguez v Port Auth. of N.Y. & N.J., 293 AD2d [428]*428325, 326 [1st Dept 2002]). General statements that the witnesses would be inconvenienced by traveling to Bronx County are insufficient to warrant a change of venue, given the relatively short distance between Richmond and Bronx Counties (see Gersten v Lemke, 68 AD3d 681 [1st Dept 2009]). Furthermore, the fact that plaintiff has a pending personal injury action in Richmond County against a nonparty relating to a workplace accident is irrelevant in determining the proper venue for this action, in which he alleges that defendants improperly terminated his employment for discriminatory or retaliatory reasons.

Concur—Tom, J.E, Renwick, Andrias, Freedman and Clark, JJ.

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

Order, Supreme Court, Bronx County (John Barone, J.), entered October 23, 2012, which denied defendants’ motion pursuant to CPLR 510 (3) to change venue to Richmond County, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

Plaintiff properly placed venue in Bronx County, where he resides. In seeking a discretionary change of venue, defendants failed to make the required “detailed justification for such relief in the form of the identity and availability of proposed witnesses, the nature and materiality of their anticipated testimony, and the manner in which they would be inconvenienced by the initial venue” (Rodriguez v Port Auth. of N.Y. & N.J., 293 AD2d [428]*428325, 326 [1st Dept 2002]). General statements that the witnesses would be inconvenienced by traveling to Bronx County are insufficient to warrant a change of venue, given the relatively short distance between Richmond and Bronx Counties (see Gersten v Lemke, 68 AD3d 681 [1st Dept 2009]). Furthermore, the fact that plaintiff has a pending personal injury action in Richmond County against a nonparty relating to a workplace accident is irrelevant in determining the proper venue for this action, in which he alleges that defendants improperly terminated his employment for discriminatory or retaliatory reasons.

Concur—Tom, J.E, Renwick, Andrias, Freedman and Clark, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

118 A.D.3d 427, 987 N.Y.S.2d 64, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/moumouni-v-tappen-park-associates-inc-nyappdiv-2014.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack