United Community Insurance v. Triboro Signal Station, Inc.

160 A.D.2d 1206, 555 N.Y.S.2d 210, 1990 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4706
CourtAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York
DecidedApril 26, 1990
StatusPublished
Cited by3 cases

This text of 160 A.D.2d 1206 (United Community Insurance v. Triboro Signal Station, Inc.) 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
United Community Insurance v. Triboro Signal Station, Inc., 160 A.D.2d 1206, 555 N.Y.S.2d 210, 1990 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4706 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1990).

Opinion

Kane, J. P.

Appeal from an order of the Supreme Court (Kahn, J.), entered May 22, 1989 in Albany County, which denied defendant’s motion for a change of venue.

Plaintiff commenced this action as an insured’s subrogee to recover, inter alia, payment made to the insured for damages to the insured’s property due to defendant’s alleged breach of contract. Defendant appeals from the denial of its motion for a change of venue.

We affirm. In doing so, we reject defendant’s argument that subrogation and assignment are the same for purposes of determining venue based on residence (see, CPLR 503 [e]). Pursuant to CPLR 503 (e), an assignee’s residence in an action for a sum of money only is that of the original assignor. Assignment, however, is significantly different from subroga[1207]*1207tion (see, 6A Appleman, Insurance Law and Practice § 4053, at 134-136), with certain rights in the latter rooted in equitable considerations. As such, we find nothing contained in the language or intent of CPLR 503 (e) that necessarily equates subrogation with assignment in designating the parties’ residence for purposes of venue (see, McLaughlin, Practice Commentaries, McKinney’s Cons Laws of NY, Book 7B, CPLR C503:5, at 17).

Moreover, we find no abuse of Supreme Court’s discretion in denying the motion. Defendant failed to sufficiently establish that the convenience of material nonparty witnesses would be served and the ends of justice promoted by the venue change sought (see, CPLR 510 [3]).

Order affirmed, without costs. Kane, J. P., Casey, Mikoll, Yesawich, Jr., and Levine, JJ., concur.

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

Related

Joseph v. Fensterman
216 A.D.3d 1355 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2023)
Lawyers' Fund v. Gateway State Bank
239 A.D.2d 826 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1997)
Lawyers' Fund v. Gateway State Bank
171 Misc. 2d 485 (New York Supreme Court, 1996)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
160 A.D.2d 1206, 555 N.Y.S.2d 210, 1990 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4706, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/united-community-insurance-v-triboro-signal-station-inc-nyappdiv-1990.