Pruitt v. Patsalos

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Pruitt v. Patsalos

96 A.D.3d 924, 946 N.Y.S.2d 486

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

DecidedJune 20, 2012

StatusPublished

Cited by3 cases

This text of 96 A.D.3d 924 (Pruitt v. Patsalos) 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

Pruitt v. Patsalos, 96 A.D.3d 924, 946 N.Y.S.2d 486 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2012).

Pincite

Opinion

In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, etc., the plaintiffs appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Orange County (Ecker, J.), entered August 3, 2011, which denied their motion pursuant to CPLR 510 (2) to change the venue of the action from Orange County to Dutchess County.

Ordered that the order is reversed, on the facts and in the exercise of discretion, with costs, the plaintiffs’ motion pursuant to CPLR 510 (2) to change the venue of the action from Orange County to Dutchess County is granted, and the Clerk of the Supreme Court, Orange County, is directed to deliver to the Clerk of the Supreme Court, Dutchess County, all papers filed in the action and certified copies of all minutes and entries (see CPLR 511 [d]).

To obtain a change of venue pursuant to CPLR 510 (2), a movant is required to produce admissible factual evidence demonstrating a strong possibility that an impartial trial cannot be obtained in the county where venue was properly placed (see Matter of Michiel, 48 AD3d 687 [2008]; Jablonski v Trost, 245 AD2d 338, 339 [1997]; Albanese v West Nassau Mental Health Ctr., 208 AD2d 665, 666 [1994]). Under the circumstances of this case, including the evidence demonstrating that the defendant is a retired Orange County Supreme Court Justice, who presided in that court for more than two decades, that his relative is a retired Orange County Court Judge, and that the defendant’s daughter is a Support Magistrate in the Orange County Family Court, the protection of the court from even a possible appearance of impropriety requires a change of the venue of the action from Orange County to Dutchess County (see Saxe v OB/GYN Assoc., 86 NY2d 820, 822 [1995]; Kavelman v Taylor, 245 AD2d 9 [1997]; Milazzo v Long Is. Light. Co., 106 AD2d 495 [1984]).

Accordingly, the Supreme Court should have granted the plaintiffs’ motion pursuant to CPLR 510 (2) to change the venue of the action from Orange County to Dutchess County. Rivera, J.P., Eng, Chambers, Sgroi and Miller, JJ., concur.

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

In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, etc., the plaintiffs appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Orange County (Ecker, J.), entered August 3, 2011, which denied their motion pursuant to CPLR 510 (2) to change the venue of the action from Orange County to Dutchess County.

Ordered that the order is reversed, on the facts and in the exercise of discretion, with costs, the plaintiffs’ motion pursuant to CPLR 510 (2) to change the venue of the action from Orange County to Dutchess County is granted, and the Clerk of the Supreme Court, Orange County, is directed to deliver to the Clerk of the Supreme Court, Dutchess County, all papers filed in the action and certified copies of all minutes and entries (see CPLR 511 [d]).

To obtain a change of venue pursuant to CPLR 510 (2), a movant is required to produce admissible factual evidence demonstrating a strong possibility that an impartial trial cannot be obtained in the county where venue was properly placed (see Matter of Michiel, 48 AD3d 687 [2008]; Jablonski v Trost, 245 AD2d 338, 339 [1997]; Albanese v West Nassau Mental Health Ctr., 208 AD2d 665, 666 [1994]). Under the circumstances of this case, including the evidence demonstrating that the defendant is a retired Orange County Supreme Court Justice, who presided in that court for more than two decades, that his relative is a retired Orange County Court Judge, and that the defendant’s daughter is a Support Magistrate in the Orange County Family Court, the protection of the court from even a possible appearance of impropriety requires a change of the venue of the action from Orange County to Dutchess County (see Saxe v OB/GYN Assoc., 86 NY2d 820, 822 [1995]; Kavelman v Taylor, 245 AD2d 9 [1997]; Milazzo v Long Is. Light. Co., 106 AD2d 495 [1984]).

Accordingly, the Supreme Court should have granted the plaintiffs’ motion pursuant to CPLR 510 (2) to change the venue of the action from Orange County to Dutchess County. Rivera, J.P., Eng, Chambers, Sgroi and Miller, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

96 A.D.3d 924, 946 N.Y.S.2d 486, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/pruitt-v-patsalos-nyappdiv-2012.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack