From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Falk v. Inzinna

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Nov 19, 2001
288 A.D.2d 340 (N.Y. App. Div. 2001)

Opinion

Submitted October 3, 2001.

November 19, 2001.

In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, the plaintiff appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Hubsher, J.), dated October 24, 2000, which granted the motion of the defendants Richard A. Inzinna and Big Geyser, Inc., to change the venue of the action from Kings County to Nassau County.

Napoli, Kaiser Bern, LLP (Gerald Kaiser and Pollack, Pollack, Isaac DeCicco, New York, N.Y. [Brian J. Isaac] of counsel), for appellant.

Ted Tobias, Melville, N.Y. (Gary Austin Manso of counsel), for respondents.

Before: DAVID S. RITTER, J.P., GLORIA GOLDSTEIN, WILLIAM D. FRIEDMANN, SANDRA J. FEUERSTEIN, STEPHEN G. CRANE, JJ.


ORDERED that the order is reversed, on the law, with costs, the motion is denied, and the Clerk of the Supreme Court, Nassau County, is directed to deliver to the Clerk of the Supreme Court, Kings County, all papers filed in this action and certified copies of all minutes and entries (see, CPLR 511[d]).

On November 18, 1999, the plaintiff allegedly was injured in a motor vehicle accident in Nassau County, and commenced this action in Kings County. The Supreme Court thereafter granted the respondents' motion to change the venue of the action from Kings County to Nassau County.

The Supreme Court erred in granting the motion. The plaintiff properly commenced this action in Kings County based upon the address for the corporate respondent Big Geyser, Inc. (hereinafter Big Geyser), which appeared in the police accident report (see, CPLR 503[c]; Samuel v. Green, 276 A.D.2d 687). The conclusory statement by the respondents' attorney in his reply affirmation that Big Geyser was located in Queens County, and not in Kings County, was insufficient to establish for the purpose of venue that its principal place of business was in fact located in Queens County at the time of the commencement of the action (see, Samuel v. Green, supra; Senzon v. Uveges, 265 A.D.2d 476). We also note that the motion was untimely (see, CPLR 511[b]).

RITTER, J.P., GOLDSTEIN, FRIEDMANN, FEUERSTEIN and CRANE, JJ., concur.


Summaries of

Falk v. Inzinna

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Nov 19, 2001
288 A.D.2d 340 (N.Y. App. Div. 2001)
Case details for

Falk v. Inzinna

Case Details

Full title:BETTY K. FALK, appellant, v. RICHARD A. INZINNA, ET AL., respondents, ET…

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

Date published: Nov 19, 2001

Citations

288 A.D.2d 340 (N.Y. App. Div. 2001)
733 N.Y.S.2d 470

Citing Cases

Gonzalez v. Weiss

Ordered that the order is reversed, on the law, with costs, the motion is denied, and the County Clerk of the…

Furth v. Elrac, Inc.

The plaintiff properly commenced this action in Kings County based upon the defendant driver's Kings County…