Obas v. Grappell

43 A.D.3d 431, 841 N.Y.S.2d 595
CourtAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York
DecidedAugust 14, 2007
StatusPublished
Cited by8 cases

This text of 43 A.D.3d 431 (Obas v. Grappell) 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
Obas v. Grappell, 43 A.D.3d 431, 841 N.Y.S.2d 595 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2007).

Opinion

In an action to recover damages for medical malpractice, the defendants appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Weiss, J.), entered August 7, 2006, which denied their motion pursuant to CPLR 511 to change venue from Queens County to Nassau County.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.

A demand to change venue based on the designation of an improper county (see CPLR 503 [a]; 510 [1]) must be “served with the answer or before the answer is served” (CPLR 511 [a]). Here, since the defendants failed to serve a timely demand for a change of venue to Nassau County, and failed to make a motion for that relief within the statutory 15-day period (see CPLR 511 [b]), they were not entitled as of right to a change of venue to Nassau County (see Joyner-Pack v Sykes, 30 AD3d 469 [2006]; Harleysville Ins. Co. v Ermar Painting & Contr., Inc., 8 [432]*432AD3d 229, 230 [2004]; Runde v Cross County Shopping Mall, 268 AD2d 577 [2000]). Thus, their motion “became one addressed to the court’s discretion” (Callanan Indus, v Sovereign Constr. Co., 44 AD2d 292, 295 [1974]; see Pittman v Maher, 202 AD2d 172, 175 [1994]).. Moreover, the defendants failed to move promptly for a change of venue even after ascertaining the plaintiffs alleged true residence (see Acosta v Hadjigavriel, 6 AD3d 636, 637 [2004]; Runcie v Cross County Shopping Mall, supra), and the record does not establish that the plaintiff misled the defendants or sought to manipulate the venue rules (see Joyner-Pack v Sykes, supra; Koschak v Cates Constr. Corp., 225 AD2d 315, 316 [1996]; Pittman v Maher, supra at 174). Under the circumstances, the Supreme Court providently exercised its discretion in denying the motion. Rivera, J.E, Spolzino, Fisher, Lifson and Dickerson, JJ., concur.

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

Related

Pujals v. Haitidis
2025 NY Slip Op 03213 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2025)
Saint-Louis v. Esposito
2019 NY Slip Op 2575 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2019)
Giddings v. Century 21 Department Stores, LLC
124 A.D.3d 717 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2015)
Thomas v. Guttikonda
68 A.D.3d 853 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2009)
Vassell v. Magno
65 A.D.3d 1138 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2009)
Ramos v. Cooper Tire & Rubber Co.
62 A.D.3d 773 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2009)
Baez v. Marcus
58 A.D.3d 585 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2009)
Jeffrey L. Rosenberg & Associates, LLC v. Lajaunie
54 A.D.3d 813 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2008)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
43 A.D.3d 431, 841 N.Y.S.2d 595, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/obas-v-grappell-nyappdiv-2007.