From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Crucen v. Pepsi-Cola Bottling Co. of N.Y., Inc.

Supreme Court, Appellate Division, First Department, New York.
May 19, 2016
139 A.D.3d 538 (N.Y. App. Div. 2016)

Opinion

05-19-2016

Yani CRUCEN, Plaintiff–Respondent, v. PEPSI–COLA BOTTLING COMPANY OF NEW YORK, INC., Defendant–Appellant.

The Law Offices of Christopher P. DiGiulio, P.C., New York (Christopher P. DiGiulio of counsel), for appellant. Davidson & Cohen, P.C., Rockville Centre (Robin Mary Heaney of counsel), for respondent.


The Law Offices of Christopher P. DiGiulio, P.C., New York (Christopher P. DiGiulio of counsel), for appellant.

Davidson & Cohen, P.C., Rockville Centre (Robin Mary Heaney of counsel), for respondent.

Order, Supreme Court, Bronx County (Alison Y. Tuitt, J.), entered May 18, 2015, which, in this action for personal injuries, denied defendant's motion to change venue from Bronx County to Westchester County pursuant to CPLR 510(1), unanimously reversed, on the law, without costs, and the motion granted.

In support of its motion, defendant, a foreign corporation, submitted a certified copy of its application for authority to do business filed with the Secretary of State in which it stated that its principal place of business “is to be located” in New York County. Defendant's designation of New York County as its principal place of business in the application for authority is controlling for venue purposes (see Johanson v. J.B. Hunt Transp., Inc., 15 A.D.3d 268, 790 N.Y.S.2d 17 [1st Dept.2005] ; Kochany v. Chrysler Corp., 67 A.D.2d 637, 412 N.Y.S.2d 152 [1st Dept.1979] ; CPLR 503[c] ). Contrary to plaintiff's arguments, even if defendant does not actually have an office in New York County, and although it has notified the Department of State to forward process to an address in Bronx County, the designation made by defendant in its application for authority still controls for venue purposes (see Job v. Subaru Leasing Corp., 30 A.D.3d 159, 817 N.Y.S.2d 9 [1st Dept.2006] ; Nadle v. L.O. Realty Corp., 286 A.D.2d 130, 735 N.Y.S.2d 1 [1st Dept.2001] ).

Defendant's choice of Westchester County, where plaintiff resides and where the accident took place, as the place for trial is proper.

SWEENY, J.P., RENWICK, ANDRIAS, KAPNICK, KAHN, JJ., concur.


Summaries of

Crucen v. Pepsi-Cola Bottling Co. of N.Y., Inc.

Supreme Court, Appellate Division, First Department, New York.
May 19, 2016
139 A.D.3d 538 (N.Y. App. Div. 2016)
Case details for

Crucen v. Pepsi-Cola Bottling Co. of N.Y., Inc.

Case Details

Full title:Yani CRUCEN, Plaintiff–Respondent, v. PEPSI–COLA BOTTLING COMPANY OF NEW…

Court:Supreme Court, Appellate Division, First Department, New York.

Date published: May 19, 2016

Citations

139 A.D.3d 538 (N.Y. App. Div. 2016)
2016 N.Y. Slip Op. 3968
30 N.Y.S.3d 554

Citing Cases

Prechtl v. Trane U.S., Inc.

Defendant failed to show its entitlement to a discretionary change of venue under CPLR 510(3). Even if…

Prechtl v. Trane U.S. Inc.

It is well settled that an action against a foreign corporation is properly venued in the county designated…