Whelton v. Dayton Beach Park No. 1 Corp.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Whelton v. Dayton Beach Park No. 1 Corp.

110 A.D.3d 987, 973 N.Y.S.2d 577

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

DecidedOctober 23, 2013

StatusPublished

This text of 110 A.D.3d 987 (Whelton v. Dayton Beach Park No. 1 Corp.) 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

Whelton v. Dayton Beach Park No. 1 Corp., 110 A.D.3d 987, 973 N.Y.S.2d 577 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2013).

Pincite

Opinion

[988]*988In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, the defendants Network Infrastructure, Inc., National Grid USA Service Company, Inc., also known as National Grid USA, and Keyspan Gas East Corporation, doing business as Keyspan Energy Delivery Long Island, also known as Keyspan Corporation, appeal, as limited by their brief, from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Kramer, J.), dated March 2, 2012, as denied that branch of their motion which was to transfer venue of this action from Kings County to Nassau County.

Ordered that the order is reversed insofar as appealed from, on the facts and in the exercise of discretion, with costs, that branch of the motion of the defendants Network Infrastructure, Inc., National Grid USA Service Company, Inc., also known as National Grid USA, and Keyspan Gas East Corporation, doing business as Keyspan Energy Delivery Long Island, also known as Keyspan Corporation, which was to transfer venue of this action from Kings County to Nassau County is granted, and the Clerk of the Supreme Court, Kings County, is directed to deliver to the Clerk of the Supreme Court, Nassau County, all papers filed in this action and certified copies of all minutes and entries (see CPLR 511 [d]).

In light of, inter alia, the Supreme Court’s determination to award summary judgment dismissing the complaint insofar as asserted against the only party in this action whose presence supported venue in Kings County (see CPLR 503 [a], [c]), its denial of that branch of the appellants’ motion which was to transfer venue of this action from Kings County to Nassau County constituted an improvident exercise of discretion (see Bonilla v Tishman Interiors Corp., 100 AD3d 673, 674 [2012]; Messiha v Staten Is. Univ. Hosp., 77 AD3d 894, 895 [2010]; Canaan v Costco Wholesale Membership, Inc., 49 AD3d 583, 585 [2008]; Clase v Sidoti, 20 AD3d 330, 331 [2005]; Xiu Mei Cheng Chow v Long Is. R.R., 202 AD2d 154, 155 [1994]). Skelos, J.P., Dickerson, Hall and Miller, JJ., concur.

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

[988]*988In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, the defendants Network Infrastructure, Inc., National Grid USA Service Company, Inc., also known as National Grid USA, and Keyspan Gas East Corporation, doing business as Keyspan Energy Delivery Long Island, also known as Keyspan Corporation, appeal, as limited by their brief, from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Kramer, J.), dated March 2, 2012, as denied that branch of their motion which was to transfer venue of this action from Kings County to Nassau County.

Ordered that the order is reversed insofar as appealed from, on the facts and in the exercise of discretion, with costs, that branch of the motion of the defendants Network Infrastructure, Inc., National Grid USA Service Company, Inc., also known as National Grid USA, and Keyspan Gas East Corporation, doing business as Keyspan Energy Delivery Long Island, also known as Keyspan Corporation, which was to transfer venue of this action from Kings County to Nassau County is granted, and the Clerk of the Supreme Court, Kings County, is directed to deliver to the Clerk of the Supreme Court, Nassau County, all papers filed in this action and certified copies of all minutes and entries (see CPLR 511 [d]).

In light of, inter alia, the Supreme Court’s determination to award summary judgment dismissing the complaint insofar as asserted against the only party in this action whose presence supported venue in Kings County (see CPLR 503 [a], [c]), its denial of that branch of the appellants’ motion which was to transfer venue of this action from Kings County to Nassau County constituted an improvident exercise of discretion (see Bonilla v Tishman Interiors Corp., 100 AD3d 673, 674 [2012]; Messiha v Staten Is. Univ. Hosp., 77 AD3d 894, 895 [2010]; Canaan v Costco Wholesale Membership, Inc., 49 AD3d 583, 585 [2008]; Clase v Sidoti, 20 AD3d 330, 331 [2005]; Xiu Mei Cheng Chow v Long Is. R.R., 202 AD2d 154, 155 [1994]). Skelos, J.P., Dickerson, Hall and Miller, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

110 A.D.3d 987, 973 N.Y.S.2d 577, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/whelton-v-dayton-beach-park-no-1-corp-nyappdiv-2013.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack