From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Cottone v. Real Estate Industrials, Inc.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Jan 20, 1998
246 A.D.2d 572 (N.Y. App. Div. 1998)

Summary

In Cotlone v Real Estate Indus., Inc., 246 AD2d 572 (2d Dept 1998), the plaintiffs selected Kings County based upon defendant's place of business, but it was later determined that the county designated on its certificate of incorporation was Westchester County.

Summary of this case from Lundy v. RDH Crystal Gardens, LLC

Opinion

January 20, 1998

Appeal from the Supreme Court, Kings County (Shaw, J.).


Ordered that the order is modified by deleting the provision thereof granting the motion only to the extent that the action is transferred to New York County and substituting therefor a provision granting the motion in its entirety; as so modified, the order is affirmed, with costs to the appellant, and the Clerk of the Supreme Court, Kings County, is directed to deliver to the Clerk of the Supreme Court, Westchester County, all papers filed in this action and certified copies of all minutes and entries ( see, CPLR 511 [d]).

We agree with the appellant's contention that the court erroneously granted its motion to change venue from Kings County to Westchester County only "to the extent that the action is transferred to New York County". The plaintiffs selected Kings County as the venue of this action based upon the appellant's place of business. The sole residence of a domestic corporation for venue purposes is the county designated in its certificate of incorporation ( see, Cenziper v. Gross, 175 A.D.2d 226, 227; Papadakis v. Command Bus Co., 91 A.D.2d 657), which, in the case of the appellant, is Westchester County. Since it is not claimed that either the plaintiffs or the co-defendant, Real Estate Industrials, Inc., resided in Kings County at the time of the commencement of the action, Westchester County, rather than Kings County, would have been an appropriate venue for the plaintiffs to commence this action against the defendants. Thus, it is clear that the plaintiffs' choice of venue was improper and they have accordingly forfeited their right to select the venue of this action ( see, Papadakis v. Command Bus Co., supra). The appellant's motion to change the venue of this action to Westchester County, a proper venue, therefore should have been granted.

Mangano, P.J., Copertino, Joy, Florio and Luciano, JJ., concur.


Summaries of

Cottone v. Real Estate Industrials, Inc.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Jan 20, 1998
246 A.D.2d 572 (N.Y. App. Div. 1998)

In Cotlone v Real Estate Indus., Inc., 246 AD2d 572 (2d Dept 1998), the plaintiffs selected Kings County based upon defendant's place of business, but it was later determined that the county designated on its certificate of incorporation was Westchester County.

Summary of this case from Lundy v. RDH Crystal Gardens, LLC
Case details for

Cottone v. Real Estate Industrials, Inc.

Case Details

Full title:ANTHONY COTTONE et al., Respondents, v. REAL ESTATE INDUSTRIALS, INC.…

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

Date published: Jan 20, 1998

Citations

246 A.D.2d 572 (N.Y. App. Div. 1998)
668 N.Y.S.2d 38

Citing Cases

TENER CONSULTING SERV. v. FSA MAIN ST., LLC

On a motion to change venue pursuant to CPLR 510 and 511, it is defendant's burden to establish that…

Panco Development Corp. v. Platek

The plaintiffs stated basis for venue in Suffolk County was its purported address. However, it is well…