P.T.R. Co. v. Teitelbaum

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

P.T.R. Co. v. Teitelbaum

2 A.D.3d 609, 768 N.Y.S.2d 387

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York·Decided December 15, 2003·Published·Cited by 4 cases

Opinion

[610]*610In an action, inter alia, to recover damages for breach of contract, the defendant appeals, as limited by her brief, from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Westchester County (Rudolph, J.), entered November 18, 2002, as denied her motion pursuant to CPLR 503 and 511 (b) to change the venue of the action from Westchester County to Kings County.

Ordered that the order is affirmed insofar as appealed from, with costs.

The defendant failed to move for a change of venue within 15 days after service of her demand. Therefore, the motion was properly denied (see CPLR 511 [b]; Runcie v Cross County Shopping Mall, 268 AD2d 577 [2000]). The defendant’s claim that she was misled as to the plaintiffs actual residence is not supported by the record. Accordingly, there exists no basis for her contention that her noncompliance with the time limit should be overlooked since she moved promptly after discovering the plaintiff’s true residence. Ritter, J.P., Smith, Friedmann, H. Miller and Crane, JJ., concur.

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

[610]*610In an action, inter alia, to recover damages for breach of contract, the defendant appeals, as limited by her brief, from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Westchester County (Rudolph, J.), entered November 18, 2002, as denied her motion pursuant to CPLR 503 and 511 (b) to change the venue of the action from Westchester County to Kings County.

Ordered that the order is affirmed insofar as appealed from, with costs.

The defendant failed to move for a change of venue within 15 days after service of her demand. Therefore, the motion was properly denied (see CPLR 511 [b]; Runcie v Cross County Shopping Mall, 268 AD2d 577 [2000]). The defendant’s claim that she was misled as to the plaintiffs actual residence is not supported by the record. Accordingly, there exists no basis for her contention that her noncompliance with the time limit should be overlooked since she moved promptly after discovering the plaintiff’s true residence. Ritter, J.P., Smith, Friedmann, H. Miller and Crane, JJ., concur.

P.T.R. Co. v. Teitelbaum, 2 A.D.3d 609, 768 N.Y.S.2d 387 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2003).

Pincite

2 A.D.3d 609 (P.T.R. Co. v. Teitelbaum) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related