Janis v Janson Supermarkets LLC, 2018 NY Slip Op 03333 [1st Dept. 2018]
Wakefern, a foreign corporation, submitted a copy of its application for authorization to conduct business filed with the Secretary of State, in which it identified New York County as "[t]he county within this state where its office is to be located" (Business Corporation Law § 1304[a]). Wakefern's designation of New York County in its application is controlling for venue purposes, even if it does not actually have an office in New York County (see Crucen v Pepsi-Cola Bottling Co. of N.Y., Inc., 139 AD3d 538 [1st Dept 2016]; Shetty v Volvo Cars of N. Am., LLC, 38 AD3d 202 [1st Dept 2007]; Job v Subaru Leasing Corp., 30 AD3d 159 [1st Dept 2006]; CPLR 503[c]).
Kochan v Target Corp., 2018 NY Slip Op 03445 [1st Dept. 2018]
Supreme Court did not improvidently exercise its discretion in granting Target's motion to change venue to Suffolk County even though plaintiff properly placed venue in New York County based upon Target's principal place of business at the time the action was commenced (see CPLR 503[a], [c]). The motor vehicle accident happened in Suffolk County, plaintiffs and codefendants live in that county, the decedent received her medical treatment there (see Lopez v Chaliwit, 268 AD2d 377 [1st Dept 2000]). Target also submitted the affidavits of two Suffolk County police officers, who averred that they were involved in the investigation including interviewing witnesses at the accident location and that they would be inconvenienced by having to travel to New York County because it would cause them to be absent from their police duties for a full day (see Kennedy v C.F. Galleria at White Plains, 2 AD3d 222, 223 [1st Dept 2003]).
That the police officers signed affidavits in favor of the motion to change venue establishes that they were aware of the action and demonstrates that they are willing to testify at trial. It was proper for the motion court to consider the police officers' convenience, because their testimony regarding their investigation as to how the accident happened bears on liability (see Hoogland v Transport Expressway, Inc., 24 AD3d 191 [1st Dept 2005]). Furthermore, the police officers' affidavits are not insufficient because they do not set forth their home addresses, since it is undisputed that they work in Suffolk County (see
Gorodetsky v Bridgewater Wholesalers, Inc., 2018 NY Slip Op 03122 [2d Dept. 2018]
Here, the defendants failed to disclose the addresses of all but one of the prospective witnesses, made only conclusory statements that the prospective witnesses would be inconvenienced, and failed to establish the manner or extent to which those witnesses would be inconvenienced (see Ambroise v United Parcel Serv. of Am. Inc., 143 AD3d at 928; Matter of Supplier Distribution Concepts, Inc., 80 AD3d 869, 871). With regard to those witnesses who were New York State police officers, while "the convenience of local government officials, such as police officers, is of paramount importance because they should not be kept from their duties unnecessarily" (Lafferty v Eklecco, LLC, 34 AD3d 754, 755), here, only conclusory statements, without any details, were provided as to how those witnesses would be inconvenienced. As such, these statements were insufficient to establish that those witnesses would be inconvenienced if venue were not changed.