From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Auer v. Power Authority

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Fourth Department
Jan 27, 1984
99 A.D.2d 679 (N.Y. App. Div. 1984)

Opinion

January 27, 1984

Appeal from the Supreme Court, Onondaga County, Murphy, J.

Present — Hancock, Jr., J.P., Callahan, Denman, Boomer and Moule, JJ.


Order unanimously reversed, without costs, and defendant's motion granted. Memorandum: Defendant appeals from an order of Special Term which denied its motion to change venue to New York County and granted plaintiffs' cross motion to retain venue in Oswego County. CPLR 505 (subd [a]) requires that "[t]he place of trial of an action by or against a public authority * * * shall be in the county in which the authority has its principal office or where it has facilities involved in the action." Oswego County is not a proper county for venue since the authority's principal office is in New York County and the facilities involved in the action are not located in Oswego. In any event, pursuant to CPLR 510 (subd 3), venue should be set in New York County for the convenience of witnesses.


Summaries of

Auer v. Power Authority

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Fourth Department
Jan 27, 1984
99 A.D.2d 679 (N.Y. App. Div. 1984)
Case details for

Auer v. Power Authority

Case Details

Full title:MARTIN S. AUER et al., Respondents, v. POWER AUTHORITY OF THE STATE OF NEW…

Court:Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Fourth Department

Date published: Jan 27, 1984

Citations

99 A.D.2d 679 (N.Y. App. Div. 1984)

Citing Cases

Bourne v. Long Is. R.R. Co.

CPLR 505 was intended to provide "a new and uniform rule to govern actions by or against public authorities"…