CPLR § 510(3); CPLR R. 511

CPLR § 510 Grounds for change of place of trial

The court, upon motion, may change the place of trial of an action where:

1. the county designated for that purpose is not a proper county; or

2. there is reason to believe that an impartial trial cannot be had in the proper county; or3. the convenience of material witnesses and the ends of justice will be promoted by the change.

CPLR R. 511. Change of place of trial

Walton v Mercy Coll., 2009 NY Slip Op 04294 (App. Div., 1st, 2009)

The court properly denied Specta/Allied's motion to change venue in
this action where plaintiff, a resident of Bronx County, seeks damages
for injuries suffered when he was allegedly assaulted in a dormitory
while a student at defendant Mercy College located in Westchester
County. Specta/Allied failed to make the requisite showing that
retention of the action in Bronx County would inconvenience the Dobbs
Ferry police officers who investigated the assault (see CPLR
510[3]). Specta/Allied did not submit proof in admissible form
concerning the location of the officers' residences for the motion
court to determine whether the distance from their homes to the Bronx
County courthouse is greater than the distance to the Westchester
County courthouse (see Montero v Elrac, Inc., 300 AD2d 9 [2002]; compare Henry v Central Hudson Gas & Elec. Corp., 57 AD3d 452
[2008]). Moreover, assuming arguendo that all four officers indeed
reside in Westchester County, plaintiff submitted evidence showing that
the differences in distance and time between the Bronx courthouse and
the Westchester courthouse were not significant, and any inconvenience
to the witnesses would be minimal (see Timan v Sayegh, 49 AD3d 274 [2008]; Cardona v Aggressive Heating,
180 AD2d 572 [1992]). Furthermore, Specta/Allied failed to set forth
the facts as to which the subject police officers would testify and how
such testimony would be material and necessary to its defense (see Walsh v Mystic Tank Lines Corp., 51 AD3d 908 [2008]).

[*2]

Ramos v Cooper Tire & Rubber Co., 2009 NY Slip Op 03886 (App. Div., 2nd, 2009)

In an action, inter alia, to recover damages for personal injuries,
the defendant Cooper Tire and Rubber Company appeals from an order of
the Supreme Court, Kings County (Ruchelsman, J.), dated September 18,
2008, which denied its motion, denominated as one for leave to renew
its prior motion pursuant to CPLR 510(3) to change the place of trial
of the action from Kings County to Ulster County, but which was, in
effect, a motion pursuant to CPLR 510(1) and 511 to change the place of
trial of the action from Kings County to Ulster County
.

ORDERED that the order is affirmed, with costs.

The Supreme Court providently exercised its discretion in
denying the appellant's motion, in effect, pursuant to CPLR 510(1) and
511 to change the place of trial of the action from Kings County to
Ulster County
(see Baez v Marcus, 58 AD3d 585, 586; Obas v Grappell, 43 AD3d 431, 432; Callanan Indus. v Soverign Constr. Co., 44
AD2d 292, 295). The appellant failed to meet its initial burden of
demonstrating that none of the parties resided in Kings County when the
action was commenced
(see CPLR 503[a]; Baez v Marcus, 58 AD3d at 586; Galan v Delacruz, 4 AD3d 449; Llorca v Manzo, 254 AD2d 396, 397)

The bold is mine

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s