Scalea v. 209 New Chalet Dr. LLC

2026 NY Slip Op 30665(U)

• Court: New York Supreme Court, New York County
• Decided: February 19, 2026
• Docket: Index No. 158923/2025
• Status: Unpublished
• Author: Matthew V. Grieco

Opinion

Scalea v 209 New Chalet Dr. LLC 2026 NY Slip Op 30665(U) February 19, 2026 Supreme Court, New York County Docket Number: Index No. 158923/2025 Judge: Matthew V. Grieco Cases posted with a "30000" identifier, i.e., 2013 NY Slip Op 30001(U), are republished from various New York State and local government sources, including the New York State Unified Court System's eCourts Service. This opinion is uncorrected and not selected for official publication.

file:///LRB-ALB-FS1/Vol1/ecourts/Process/covers/NYSUP.1589232025.NEW_YORK.001.LBLX000_TO.html[03/09/2026 3:45:53 PM] !FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 02/24/2026 12:49 P~ INDEX NO. 158923/2025 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 20 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 02/24/2026

SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK NEW YORK COUNTY PRESENT: HON. MATTHEW V. GRIECO PART 30M Justice -------------------------------------------------------------------------X INDEX NO. 158923/2025 SOYONG SCALEA, MOTION DATE 01/29/2026 Plaintiff, MOTION SEQ. NO. 001 - V -

209 NEW CHALET DRIVE LLC,EAGLE ROCK APARTMENTS AT MOHEGAN LAKE, EAGLE ROCK DECISION + ORDER ON ADVISORS LLC MOTION

Defendant. -------------------------------------------------------------------------X

The following e-filed documents, listed by NYSCEF document number (Motion 001) 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19 were read on this motion to/for CHANGE VENUE

Plaintiffs summons designated New York County for trial, based on the principal

place of business of defendant Eagle Rock Advisors LLC (see CPLR 503). It appears that

that is the only basis for placing venue in New York County, as plaintiff is a resident of

Westchester County, which is also where the slip/trip and fall incident giving rise to the

action occurred, and neither of the other two defendants is a resident of New York

County.

Defendants timely demanded and moved for a change of venue (CPLR 511) to

Westchester County on the grounds of improper venue (CPLR 510[1]) and the

convenience of the material witnesses (CPLR 510[3]).

Defendants concede that Eagle Rock Advisors LLC is a resident of New York

County. They maintain, however, that it does not own or operate the accident premises,

it did not play any role in the happening of the incident, and that its only connection is

"merely an affiliat[ion]" with the owner, defendant 209 New Chalet Drive LLC, a

158923/2025 SCALEA, SOYONG vs. 209 NEW CHALET DRIVE LLC ET AL Page 1 of 4 Motion No. 001

1 of 4 [* 1] !FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 02/24/2026 12:49 P~ INDEX NO. 158923/2025 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 20 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 02/24/2026

Delaware limited liability company with "offices" in Nassau County (NYSCEF Doc. No.

14, Affin Support of Motion ,i,i 9-10). They assert that named defendant Eagle Rock

Apartments at Mohegan Lake is not a legal entity, and that the property is managed by

non-party Eagle Rock Management LLC, a New York limited liability company with

"offices" in Nassau County (NYSCEF Doc. No. 14, Aff in Support of Motion ,i,i 3, 10).

Defendants state that they related that information to plaintiffs attorney, who

purportedly expressed an interest in adding Eagle Rock Management LLC as a

defendant but declined to discontinue the action against Eagle Rock Advisors LLC.

In support of their position that Eagle Rock Advisors LLC is not a proper

defendant, defendants have submitted a property management agreement for the

accident premises entered into by 209 New Chalet Drive LLC as owner and Eagle Rock

Management LLC as manager (NYSCEF Doc. No. 18, Agreement). That document,

however, does not conclusively establish that there is no valid basis for potentially

holding Eagle Rock Advisors LLC liable, nor does the affirmation of counsel, who lacks

personal knowledge of the essential facts (see Guzman v Mike's Pipe Yard, 35 AD3d 266

[1st Dept 2006]). Accordingly, defendants "failed to sustain their burden of showing, by

competent proof, that plaintiffs choice of venue ... was improper" (New York Marine &

Gen. Ins. Co. v Wesco Ins. Co., 213 AD3d 461 [1 st Dept 2023]). In any event,"[w]here

venue is initially placed on the basis of the principal place of business of an improper

party, a motion to change venue should be granted after the action is dismissed as

against the improper party" (Chow v Long Island R.R., 202 AD2d 154, 155 [1st Dept

1994]; see Crew v St. Joseph's Med. Ctr., 19 AD3d 205, 206 [1 st Dept 2005] ["[w]here

venue is placed on the basis of naming an improper party, a motion to change venue

158923/2025 SCALEA, SOYONG vs. 209 NEW CHALET DRIVE LLC ET AL Page 2 of 4 Motion No. 001

2 of 4 [* 2] !FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 02/24/2026 12:49 P~ INDEX NO. 158923/2025 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 20 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 02/24/2026

should be granted upon the dismissal of that party"]). Accordingly, defendants'

application grounded in improper venue is, at the least, premature.

Alternatively, defendants seek to change venue for the convenience of material

witnesses and to promote the ends of justice (CPLR 510[3]). They note that plaintiff

resides in Westchester and the incident took place there. They believe that all her

medical treatment was rendered in Westchester, presume that "many ... , if not all," her

liability witnesses were neighbors in her housing complex (NYSCEF Doc. No. 14, Aff in

Support of Motion ,i 15), and state that their own employees all work and reside in

Westchester. However, "[m]ere general statements as to witness inconvenience are not

enough" (Timan v Sayegh, 49 AD3d 274 [1 st Dept 2008). Even if defendants' vague

portraits could be construed as adequately identifying the identities of the witnesses and

the materiality of their anticipated testimony, they have not made the requisite detailed

evidentiary showing that such witnesses have been contacted and are willing to testify,

or the manner in which the witnesses would be inconvenienced absent a change in

venue (10 Two Trees Lane LLC v Mahoney, 192 AD3d 468 [1st Dept 2021]; Thomas v

Kane Const. Group Inc., 153 AD3d 1189 [1 st Dept 2017]). As to defendants' assertion that

their employees work and reside in Westchester, "[t]he convenience of [a] defendant's

employees is not a weighty factor" (Rollinson v Pergament Acquisition Corp., 228 AD2d

186 [1 st Dept 1996]). Defendants' argument is also undermined by their failure to submit

affidavits from any of the witnesses (see Sanchez v 1 Burgess Road, LLC, 169 AD3d 605

[1st Dept 2019]; see also McConville v Makita U.S.A., Inc., 204 AD2d 206 [1st Dept 1994]

[the "convenience [of plaintiffs treating physician] should be a matter of plaintiffs, not

defendant's, solicitude"]; Rollinson, 228 AD2d at 186 [court "skeptical of any expression

of concern by defendant for plaintiffs treating physician"]). 158923/2025 SCALEA, SOYONG vs. 209 NEW CHALET DRIVE LLC ET AL Page 3 of 4 Motion No. 001

3 of 4 [* 3] !FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 02/24/2026 12:49 P~ INDEX NO. 158923/2025 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 20 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 02/24/2026

Upon the foregoing, it is

ORDERED that the motion for a change of venue is denied without prejudice if

Eagle Rock Advisors LLC is dismissed as a party to this action.

2/19/2026 DATE MATTHEW V. GRIECO, J.S.C.

~ CHECK ONE: CASE DISPOSED NON-FINAL DISPOSITION

APPLICATION:

CHECK IF APPROPRIATE: GRANTED

SETTLE ORDER 0 DENIED

INCLUDES TRANSFER/REASSIGN 8 GRANTED IN PART

SUBMIT ORDER

FIDUCIARY APPOINTMENT □ OTHER

□ REFERENCE

158923/2025 SCALEA, SOYONG vs. 209 NEW CHALET DRIVE LLC ET AL Page 4 of 4 Motion No. 001

4 of 4 [* 4]