Winston v. Krinsky

30 A.D.2d 524, 290 N.Y.S.2d 247, 1968 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3900
CourtAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York
DecidedMay 23, 1968
StatusPublished
Cited by4 cases

This text of 30 A.D.2d 524 (Winston v. Krinsky) 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
Winston v. Krinsky, 30 A.D.2d 524, 290 N.Y.S.2d 247, 1968 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3900 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1968).

Opinion

Order, entered November 6, 1967, unanimously reversed, on the law and on the facts, and in the exercise of discretion, with $30 costs and disbursements to defendants-appellants, and defendants’ motion for change of venue to Suffolk County granted. Although this is in form a stockholder’s derivative action brought by an alleged resident of New York County, certain causes of action are specifically intended to compel defendants to reconvey to the interested corporations certain real property which is situated in Suffolk County and which was allegedly purchased for the corporations or in which corporate funds are invested. Plaintiff also seeks to enjoin the transfer of the property or the creation of liens or incumbrances thereon and to procure the appointment of a Receiver to take possession of the property pending the action. Clearly, the judgment sought in the action would “ affect the title to, or the possession, use or enjoyment of ” the Suffolk County real property. On this basis, the place of trial of the action should have been placed in Suffolk County. (CPLR 507; see Dair Bldg. Constr. Co. v. Mayer, 27 A D 2d 535; Grace v. Deepdale, Inc., 3 A D 2d 397.) In the [525]*525circumstances here, it was an improvident exercise of discretion for Special Term to deny the motion for the change of venue, to the proper county. Concur — Stevens, J. F., Eager, Capozzoli and Bastow, JJ.

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

Related

Shapiro v. Rockville Country Club, Inc.
22 A.D.3d 657 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2005)
Weinstock v. Cleary
224 A.D.2d 611 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1996)
Michalski v. Noah Home Improvement & Construction Corp.
128 Misc. 2d 901 (New York County Courts, 1985)
Inspiration Enterprises, Inc. v. Inland Credit Corp.
54 A.D.2d 839 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1976)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
30 A.D.2d 524, 290 N.Y.S.2d 247, 1968 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3900, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/winston-v-krinsky-nyappdiv-1968.