Nash Kelvinator Sales Corp. v. Clark

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Nash Kelvinator Sales Corp. v. Clark

276 A.D.2d 1056

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

DecidedMarch 22, 1950

StatusPublished

This text of 276 A.D.2d 1056 (Nash Kelvinator Sales Corp. v. Clark) 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

Nash Kelvinator Sales Corp. v. Clark, 276 A.D.2d 1056 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1950).

Pincite

Opinion

Memorandum: Plaintiff is a foreign corporation authorized to conduct business in this State. It claims to have a residence at its place of business in Buffalo, Erie County. Defendants both reside in Broome County. They made demand that the action be removed to Broome County on the ground that Broome County was the proper place of trial, and on plaintiff’s failure to con[1057]*1057sent, moved to change the place of trial from Brie to Broome County. (Civ. Prac. Act, § 182; Rules Civ. Prae., rule 146.) The Special Term granted the order and plaintiff appeals. It has long been established that in an action in which a resident of this State and a foreign corporation are parties, the county of the resident is the proper county. (Shepard & Morse Lbr. Co. v. Burleigh, 27 App. Div. 99; Remington & Sherman Co. v. Niagara Co. Nat. Bank, 54 App. Div. 358; Mills & Gibb v. Starin, 119 App. Div. 336; Miller Chemical & Fertilizer Corp. v. Babcock, 259 App. Div. 790.) All concur. (The order appealed from changes the place of trial from Brie County to Broome County.) Present — Taylor, P. J., McCurn, Love, Vaughan and Piper, JJ.

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

Memorandum: Plaintiff is a foreign corporation authorized to conduct business in this State. It claims to have a residence at its place of business in Buffalo, Erie County. Defendants both reside in Broome County. They made demand that the action be removed to Broome County on the ground that Broome County was the proper place of trial, and on plaintiff’s failure to con[1057]*1057sent, moved to change the place of trial from Brie to Broome County. (Civ. Prac. Act, § 182; Rules Civ. Prae., rule 146.) The Special Term granted the order and plaintiff appeals. It has long been established that in an action in which a resident of this State and a foreign corporation are parties, the county of the resident is the proper county. (Shepard & Morse Lbr. Co. v. Burleigh, 27 App. Div. 99; Remington & Sherman Co. v. Niagara Co. Nat. Bank, 54 App. Div. 358; Mills & Gibb v. Starin, 119 App. Div. 336; Miller Chemical & Fertilizer Corp. v. Babcock, 259 App. Div. 790.) All concur. (The order appealed from changes the place of trial from Brie County to Broome County.) Present — Taylor, P. J., McCurn, Love, Vaughan and Piper, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

276 A.D.2d 1056, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/nash-kelvinator-sales-corp-v-clark-nyappdiv-1950.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack