Pezzuti v. Vining

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Pezzuti v. Vining

44 A.D.2d 651, 352 N.Y.S.2d 739, 1974 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 5596

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

DecidedMarch 4, 1974

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 44 A.D.2d 651 (Pezzuti v. Vining) 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

Pezzuti v. Vining, 44 A.D.2d 651, 352 N.Y.S.2d 739, 1974 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 5596 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1974).

Pincite

Opinion

Order unanimously reversed, with costs, appellants’ motion granted and venue changed to Broome County. Memorandum: The respondents inadvertently placed venue of this action in Tompkins County where none of the parties reside. Pursuant to CPLR 510 (subd. 1) and CPLR 511, the appellants demanded that venue be remoyed to Broome County, where aE of the parties reside. The respondents then moved for a change of venue to Cayuga County, the county where real property involved in the dispute is located, and the appellants cross-moved seeking the Broome County venue. Special Term changed the venue to Cayuga County. We view this action as transitory in nature since it is based upon an agreement made after the sales contract, some parties to which did not sign the agreement. The respondents’ motion should have been denied and the appellants’ motion granted and the venue changed to Broome County (Upjohn v. First M. E. Church Soc., 156 App. Div. 147; 2 Weinstein-Korn-Miller, par. 503.01). (Appeal from order of Cayuga Special Term, granting motion for change of venue.) Present—Witmer, J. P., Moule, Cardamone, Simons and Mahoney, JJ.

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

Order unanimously reversed, with costs, appellants’ motion granted and venue changed to Broome County. Memorandum: The respondents inadvertently placed venue of this action in Tompkins County where none of the parties reside. Pursuant to CPLR 510 (subd. 1) and CPLR 511, the appellants demanded that venue be remoyed to Broome County, where aE of the parties reside. The respondents then moved for a change of venue to Cayuga County, the county where real property involved in the dispute is located, and the appellants cross-moved seeking the Broome County venue. Special Term changed the venue to Cayuga County. We view this action as transitory in nature since it is based upon an agreement made after the sales contract, some parties to which did not sign the agreement. The respondents’ motion should have been denied and the appellants’ motion granted and the venue changed to Broome County (Upjohn v. First M. E. Church Soc., 156 App. Div. 147; 2 Weinstein-Korn-Miller, par. 503.01). (Appeal from order of Cayuga Special Term, granting motion for change of venue.) Present—Witmer, J. P., Moule, Cardamone, Simons and Mahoney, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

44 A.D.2d 651, 352 N.Y.S.2d 739, 1974 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 5596, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/pezzuti-v-vining-nyappdiv-1974.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack