Smith v. City of New York

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Smith v. City of New York

158 A.D.2d 594, 551 N.Y.S.2d 565, 1990 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 1990

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

DecidedFebruary 20, 1990

StatusPublished

Cited by3 cases

This text of 158 A.D.2d 594 (Smith 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

Smith v. City of New York, 158 A.D.2d 594, 551 N.Y.S.2d 565, 1990 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 1990 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1990).

Pincite

Opinion

The plaintiff, a Bronx resident, was a passenger on the appellants’ bus when it collided with a New York City sanitation truck at an intersection in The Bronx. She allegedly sustained personal injuries, and brought suit against the defendants, setting venue in The Bronx pursuant to CPLR 503 (a) and 504 (3). The defendant County of Westchester and Liberty Lines Transit, Inc., moved for a change of venue, arguing that CPLR 504 (1) as well as 510 (3) mandated a transfer of venue to Westchester County. Their motion was denied.

Where statutory venue provisions are in conflict, the court [595]*595may, under its discretionary powers, change or retain venue upon considerations set forth in CPLR 510 (3) of "the convenience of * * * witnesses and the ends of justice” (see, McAdoo v Levinson, 143 AD2d 819; Weissmandl v Murray Walter, Inc., 147 AD2d 474). The appellants relied upon CPLR 504 (1), which states that the place of trial of an action against a county shall be "in such county”. They failed to present grounds pursuant to CPLR 510 (3) to support a transfer. The lack of opposition by the City of New York to the appellants’ motion cannot be construed as a waiver, as the burden fell upon plaintiff to sustain her choice of venue. The determination of the Supreme Court was an appropriate exercise of its discretion (see, McAdoo v Levinson, supra). Mollen, P. J., Brown, Kooper and Miller, JJ., concur.

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

The plaintiff, a Bronx resident, was a passenger on the appellants’ bus when it collided with a New York City sanitation truck at an intersection in The Bronx. She allegedly sustained personal injuries, and brought suit against the defendants, setting venue in The Bronx pursuant to CPLR 503 (a) and 504 (3). The defendant County of Westchester and Liberty Lines Transit, Inc., moved for a change of venue, arguing that CPLR 504 (1) as well as 510 (3) mandated a transfer of venue to Westchester County. Their motion was denied.

Where statutory venue provisions are in conflict, the court [595]*595may, under its discretionary powers, change or retain venue upon considerations set forth in CPLR 510 (3) of "the convenience of * * * witnesses and the ends of justice” (see, McAdoo v Levinson, 143 AD2d 819; Weissmandl v Murray Walter, Inc., 147 AD2d 474). The appellants relied upon CPLR 504 (1), which states that the place of trial of an action against a county shall be "in such county”. They failed to present grounds pursuant to CPLR 510 (3) to support a transfer. The lack of opposition by the City of New York to the appellants’ motion cannot be construed as a waiver, as the burden fell upon plaintiff to sustain her choice of venue. The determination of the Supreme Court was an appropriate exercise of its discretion (see, McAdoo v Levinson, supra). Mollen, P. J., Brown, Kooper and Miller, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

158 A.D.2d 594, 551 N.Y.S.2d 565, 1990 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 1990, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/smith-v-city-of-new-york-nyappdiv-1990.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack