Tashenberg v. Breslin

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Tashenberg v. Breslin

89 A.D.2d 812, 453 N.Y.S.2d 538, 1982 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 17937

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

DecidedJuly 9, 1982

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 89 A.D.2d 812 (Tashenberg v. Breslin) 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

Tashenberg v. Breslin, 89 A.D.2d 812, 453 N.Y.S.2d 538, 1982 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 17937 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1982).

Pincite

Opinion

Order unanimously affirmed, with costs. Memorandum: Special Term properly denied respondent’s motion for a change of venue. If this were simply a special proceeding for a judicial dissolution, venue would lie in the judicial district in which the office of the corporation is located, that location being the one designated in the certificate of incorporation (Business Corporation Law, § 102, subd [a], par [10]; § 1112; Hoffman v Oxford Devs., 9 AD2d 937). Here, however, inasmuch as the petitioner essentially seeks various other types of relief on his own behalf as a stockholder, director and officer, his county of residence is proper for purposes of venue (CPLR 503, subd [a]; Feldmeier v Webster, 208 Misc 996, affd 1 AD2d 938; Blum v Gleitsman, 25 Misc 2d 740). Accordingly, since this matter involves a joinder of claims with conflicting venue provisions, Special Term exercised its discretion and designated petitioner’s county of residence as the place of trial (CPLR 502); (Appeal from order of Supreme Court, Erie County, Sedita, J. — change of venue.) Present — Dillon, P. J., Hancock, Jr., Denman, Boomer and Moule, JJ.

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

Order unanimously affirmed, with costs. Memorandum: Special Term properly denied respondent’s motion for a change of venue. If this were simply a special proceeding for a judicial dissolution, venue would lie in the judicial district in which the office of the corporation is located, that location being the one designated in the certificate of incorporation (Business Corporation Law, § 102, subd [a], par [10]; § 1112; Hoffman v Oxford Devs., 9 AD2d 937). Here, however, inasmuch as the petitioner essentially seeks various other types of relief on his own behalf as a stockholder, director and officer, his county of residence is proper for purposes of venue (CPLR 503, subd [a]; Feldmeier v Webster, 208 Misc 996, affd 1 AD2d 938; Blum v Gleitsman, 25 Misc 2d 740). Accordingly, since this matter involves a joinder of claims with conflicting venue provisions, Special Term exercised its discretion and designated petitioner’s county of residence as the place of trial (CPLR 502); (Appeal from order of Supreme Court, Erie County, Sedita, J. — change of venue.) Present — Dillon, P. J., Hancock, Jr., Denman, Boomer and Moule, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

89 A.D.2d 812, 453 N.Y.S.2d 538, 1982 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 17937, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/tashenberg-v-breslin-nyappdiv-1982.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack