Stone v. Greenspan

19 A.D.3d 403, 795 N.Y.S.2d 894

Opinion

In an action to recover damages pursuant to Judiciary Law § 487, the plaintiff appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Westchester County (LaCava, J.), dated June 8, 2004, which granted the defendant’s motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint and denied his cross motion for summary judgment.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.

The defendant made a prima facie showing of entitlement to summary judgment dismissing this action alleging violations of Judiciary Law § 487 (see Alvarez v Prospect Hosp., 68 NY2d 320 [1986]; Donaldson v Bottar, 275 AD2d 897, 898 [2000]; Michalic [404]*404v Klat, 128 AD2d 505, 506 [1987]). In opposition thereto, the plaintiff failed to raise a triable issue of fact. Accordingly, the Supreme Court properly granted the defendant’s motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint, and denied the plaintiffs cross motion .for summary judgment.

The plaintiffs contention that the venue of this action should be changed to Oneida County, where he commenced it, is not properly raised in this Court. Moreover, the plaintiff should have appealed to the Appellate Division, Fourth Department (see CPLR 511 [d]) from the order of the Supreme Court, Oneida County, changing the venue of this action to Westchester County.

The plaintiffs remaining contentions are without merit. H. Miller, J.E, Cozier, Crane and Skelos, JJ., concur.

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

Stone v. Greenspan, 19 A.D.3d 403, 795 N.Y.S.2d 894 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2005).

19 A.D.3d 403 (Stone v. Greenspan) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Alvarez v. Prospect Hospital
501 N.E.2d 572 (New York Court of Appeals, 1986)
Michalic v. Klat
128 A.D.2d 505 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1987)
Donaldson v. Bottar
275 A.D.2d 897 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2000)