Singh v. Empire International, Ltd.

95 A.D.3d 793, 947 N.Y.S.2d 1
CourtAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York
DecidedMay 31, 2012
StatusPublished
Cited by8 cases

This text of 95 A.D.3d 793 (Singh v. Empire International, Ltd.) 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
Singh v. Empire International, Ltd., 95 A.D.3d 793, 947 N.Y.S.2d 1 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2012).

Opinion

Order, Supreme Court, Bronx County (Mark Friedlander, J.), entered May 23, 2011, which, in an action for personal injuries arising out of a motor vehicle accident, denied defendants’ motion to change the venue of the action from Bronx County to Queens County, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

Defendant Serour’s conclusory affidavit attesting to a Queens County residency, unsupported by documentation of such residency, was insufficient to satisfy defendants’ initial burden of showing that the venue chosen by plaintiff was improper (Furth v ELRAC, Inc., 11 AD3d 509, 510 [2004]; McKenzie v MAJ Tr., 204 AD2d 154 [1994]). In any event, plaintiff sufficiently rebutted defendants’ proof by submitting the police accident report, which shows that all parties, including Ser our, had addresses outside of New York State at the time of the accident, thereby permitting plaintiff to designate any county as the venue for trial (see CPLR 503 [a]; Furth, 11 AD3d at 510). The utility bills defendants submitted for the first time in reply were properly rejected, as the reply was late and defendants failed to explain why they did not submit the bills with the original moving papers (Furth, 11 AD3d at 510). In any event, the bills were issued around the time of the accident, not the commencement of the action, and thus were insufficient to raise an issue of fact, especially since defendants offered no explanation for the different addresses on the bills and Serour’s driver’s license (see Hernandez v Seminatore, 48 AD3d 260 [2008]; compare Herrera v A. Pegasus Limousine Corp., 34 AD3d 267 [2006]). Concur — Tom, J.P., Andrias, Saxe, Moskowitz and Acosta, JJ.

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

Related

Burman v. Burman
2024 NY Slip Op 31856(U) (New York Supreme Court, New York County, 2024)
Racquel Lividini v. Harold L. Goldstein
New York Court of Appeals, 2021
Lividini v. Goldstein
2019 NY Slip Op 6150 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2019)
Ortiz v. Rivera
2018 NY Slip Op 8450 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2018)
Darbeau v. 136 West 3rd Street, LLC
2016 NY Slip Op 7132 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2016)
Martinez v. Nguyen
102 A.D.3d 555 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2013)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
95 A.D.3d 793, 947 N.Y.S.2d 1, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/singh-v-empire-international-ltd-nyappdiv-2012.