Home/New York Court of Appeals/Saxe v. OB/GYN Associates, P. C.

Saxe v. OB/GYN Associates, P. C.

657 N.E.2d 492, 86 N.Y.2d 820, 633 N.Y.S.2d 471, 1995 N.Y. LEXIS 3363
CourtNew York Court of Appeals
DecidedSeptember 21, 1995
StatusPublished
Cited by12 cases

This text of 657 N.E.2d 492 (Saxe v. OB/GYN Associates, P. C.) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering New York Court of Appeals primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Saxe v. OB/GYN Associates, P. C., 657 N.E.2d 492, 86 N.Y.2d 820, 633 N.Y.S.2d 471, 1995 N.Y. LEXIS 3363 (N.Y. 1995).

Opinion

[822]*822OPINION OF THE COURT

Memorandum.

The order of the Appellate Division should be reversed, with costs, plaintiffs’ motion to transfer the action to Kings County denied, and the matter remitted to Supreme Court, New York County, for further proceedings not inconsistent with this memorandum. The certified question is answered in the negative.

Where one of the parties to the action commenced in New York County is a Supreme Court Justice in that jurisdiction, the Appellate Division did not abuse its discretion in transferring the action out of New York County pursuant to CPLR 510 (2), to avoid concerns about the appearance of impropriety (see, Rothwax v Spicehandler, 161 AD2d 184; De Luca v CBS, Inc., 105 AD2d 770).

In light of the express legislative preference for actions being tried in proper counties (see, CPLR 502, 503, 510 [1]; 511 [b]), however, a court must, whenever possible, transfer an action under CPLR 510 to a county in which the action properly could have been commenced. Kings County, requested by plaintiffs, is an improper county for commencing the action under CPLR 503 (a). Therefore, the court should have transferred the action to Westchester County, the county requested by defendants, or one of the other proper alternative forums in which various defendants resided at the commencement of this action.

Chief Judge Kaye and Judges Simons, Titone, Bellacosa, Smith, Levine and Ciparick concur in memorandum.

On review of submissions pursuant to section 500.4 of the Rules of the Court of Appeals (22 NYCRR 500.4), order reversed, etc.

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

Related

Racquel Lividini v. Harold L. Goldstein
New York Court of Appeals, 2021
Hakanjin v. Lincare, Inc.
2019 NY Slip Op 3677 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2019)
Pruitt v. Patsalos
96 A.D.3d 924 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2012)
Braun v. Sid's 2nd Avenue Bike Shop, Inc.
58 A.D.3d 529 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2009)
Golia v. Petze
56 A.D.2d 611 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2008)
Silbermann v. Triple Petroleum, Inc.
22 A.D.3d 272 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2005)
Owen v. Halperin
12 A.D.3d 582 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2004)
Handler v. 1050 Tenants Corp.
295 A.D.2d 238 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2002)
Lawrence v. Ledgin
289 A.D.2d 457 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2001)
Mazzocki v. State Farm Fire & Casualty Co.
170 Misc. 2d 70 (New York Supreme Court, 1996)
Amann v. Caccese
223 A.D.2d 663 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1996)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
657 N.E.2d 492, 86 N.Y.2d 820, 633 N.Y.S.2d 471, 1995 N.Y. LEXIS 3363, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/saxe-v-obgyn-associates-p-c-ny-1995.