Rodriguez v. City of New York

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Rodriguez v. City of New York

92 A.D.3d 596, 938 N.Y.2d 802

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

DecidedFebruary 23, 2012

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 92 A.D.3d 596 (Rodriguez v. City of New York) 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

Rodriguez v. City of New York, 92 A.D.3d 596, 938 N.Y.2d 802 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2012).

Pincite

Opinion

[597]*597Bronx County was a proper venue for this action alleging false arrest, false imprisonment, malicious prosecution, assault, battery and civil rights violations. It is uncontested that plaintiff was arrested in Bronx County, and the alleged assault and battery, and related alleged civil rights violations, arose in Bronx County (CPLR 504 [3]; see Garces v City of New York, 60 AD3d 551 [2009]). Moreover defendants did not make a demand for a change of venue as required by CPLR 511 (a). Defendants have made no showing that the convenience of witnesses required a change of venue to New York County, nor have they persuasively argued that the ends of justice favor such a change (CPLR 510 [3]). Concur — Tom, J.P, Friedman, Sweeny, Moskowitz and DeGrasse, JJ.

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

[597]*597Bronx County was a proper venue for this action alleging false arrest, false imprisonment, malicious prosecution, assault, battery and civil rights violations. It is uncontested that plaintiff was arrested in Bronx County, and the alleged assault and battery, and related alleged civil rights violations, arose in Bronx County (CPLR 504 [3]; see Garces v City of New York, 60 AD3d 551 [2009]). Moreover defendants did not make a demand for a change of venue as required by CPLR 511 (a). Defendants have made no showing that the convenience of witnesses required a change of venue to New York County, nor have they persuasively argued that the ends of justice favor such a change (CPLR 510 [3]). Concur — Tom, J.P, Friedman, Sweeny, Moskowitz and DeGrasse, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

92 A.D.3d 596, 938 N.Y.2d 802, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/rodriguez-v-city-of-new-york-nyappdiv-2012.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack