conflict between CPLR 504 and 505

CPLR § 504 Actions against counties, cities, towns, villages, school districts and district corporations

CPLR § 505 Actions involving public authorities

Alvarez v Metropolitan Transp. Co., 2011 NY Slip Op 08285 (1st Dept., 2011)

CPLR 504(1) would ordinarily place venue in Westchester County (see Powers v East Hudson Parkway Auth., 75 AD2d 776 [1980]; see also Chitayat v Princeton Restoration Corp., 289 AD2d 102 [2001]). However, when plaintiff named the Metropolitan Transportation Company as a defendant, a conflict arose between CPLR 504(1) and CPLR 505(a). Thus, the court had the discretion to choose a venue proper for at least one of the parties or claims (CPLR 502). The court did not abuse its discretion when it left venue in Bronx County, where the motor vehicle accident occurred and where defendant bus driver resides. We note that should the record develop sufficiently to establish that the Metropolitan Transportation Company was improperly named as a defendant, the remaining defendants may still move under CPLR 504(1) for a change of venue.

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