CPLR § 510 Grounds for change of place of trial
CPLR R. 511 Change of place of trial
Otero v Davis, 2011 NY Slip Op 03191 (App. Div., 1st 2011)
Defendant failed to meet her burden to establish that New York is an inconvenient forum for this action (see Islamic Republic of Iran v Pahlavi, 62 NY2d 474, 478-479 , cert denied 469 US 1108 ; Bank Hapoalim [Switzerland] Ltd. v Banca Intesa S.p.A., 26 AD3d 286, 287 ). There is nothing in the record to suggest that the court did not properly consider the relevant factors (see Pahlavi at 479).
Mann v Janyear Trading Corp., 2011 NY Slip Op 03192 (App. Div., 1st 2011)
The untimeliness of defendants' demand for a change of venue and the subsequent motion is excusable because the summons, complaint, and bill of particulars misleadingly indicated that plaintiff resided in Bronx County (see Philogene v Fuller Auto Leasing, 167 AD2d 178 ). Furthermore, the record shows that defendants promptly moved only days after ascertaining that the statements made by plaintiff were misleading (see id.).
Regarding the merits, the motion, which was based on plaintiff's designation of an improper county (CPLR 510), should have been granted and venue changed to Kings County (defendants' residence). Plaintiff's assertion that she resided in Bronx County is untenable in light of her deposition testimony. When asked if she ever resided at her parents' residence in the Bronx "at any time during 2006," which was when the accident occurred and the action was commenced, plaintiff replied "no" and that she had lived in New York County during the relevant time (see Santulli v Santulli, 228 AD2d 247, 248 ).
Mohsin v Port Auth. of N.Y. & N.J., 2011 NY Slip Op 03119 (App. Div., 1st 2011)
Defendants' moving papers were deficient inasmuch as they failed to provide the names, addresses and occupation of prospective non-party witnesses, the proposed testimony, the witnesses' willingness to testify, and that the witnesses will be inconvenienced by the present venue (see Jacobs v Banks Shapiro Gettinger Waldinger & Brennan, LLP, 9 AD3d 299 ); the convenience of party witnesses is not a factor (see Gissen v Boy Scouts of Am., 26 AD3d 289 ). The affidavits submitted for the first time in defendants' reply papers should not have been considered by the court, as they improperly raised new facts not directly responsive to plaintiff's opposition, which merely highlighted the deficiency of defendants' initial papers (see Root v Brotmann, 41 AD3d 247 ; Job v Subaru Leasing Corp., 30 AD3d 159 ).
Weiss v Wal-Mart Stores E., L.P., 2011 NY Slip Op 02814 (App. Div., 1st 2011)
Defendant met its initial burden of establishing that the venue chosen by plaintiff was improper (see Hernandez v Seminatore, 48 AD3d 260 ; CPLR 510[a]). Defendant submitted proof indicating that plaintiff's claimed residence in New York County was an office building, not an apartment building. Defendant also submitted motor vehicle records showing that plaintiff resided in Orange County at all relevant times (see Collins v Glenwood Mgt. Cor., 25 AD3d 447, 448 . Plaintiff's conclusory affidavit attesting to her New York County residence was insufficient to rebut defendant's proof (see Furlow v Braeubrun, 259 AD2d 417 ). Furthermore, since plaintiff forfeited the right to select the venue by choosing an improper venue in the first instance (see Roman v Brereton, 182 AD2d 556 ), venue is properly placed in Suffolk County, defendant's designated residence for venue purposes.