From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Fortune v. Palomino

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, First Department
Oct 23, 2001
287 A.D.2d 361 (N.Y. App. Div. 2001)

Opinion

October 23, 2001.

Order, Supreme Court, Bronx County (Bertram Katz, J.), entered February 15, 2001, which denied plaintiffs' motion to reargue a prior order, same court and Justice, entered December 6, 2000, insofar as appealed granting defendant's cross motion to change venue from Bronx County to New York County, unanimously modified, on the law and the facts, to deem plaintiffs' motion to reargue as one to renew, to grant renewal, and, upon renewal, to adhere to the prior order changing venue, and otherwise affirmed, without costs. Appeal from the order of December 6, 2000, unanimously dismissed, without costs, as moot.

Paul F. McAloon, for plaintiffs-appellants.

Elizabeth M. Hecht, for defendant-respondent.

Before: Sullivan, P.J., Andrias, Wallach, Saxe, Marlow, JJ.


We grant renewal because the motion court apparently did not receive plaintiffs' opposition papers to defendant's cross motion to change venue, through no fault of plaintiffs. Upon renewal, we find that plaintiffs' deposition testimony leaves no question that both had completed their move from Bronx County to New York County before commencement of the action. Accordingly, Bronx County is not a proper venue (CPLR 503[a], 510).

THIS CONSTITUTES THE DECISION AND ORDER OF THE SUPREME COURT, APPELLATE DIVISION, FIRST DEPARTMENT.


Summaries of

Fortune v. Palomino

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, First Department
Oct 23, 2001
287 A.D.2d 361 (N.Y. App. Div. 2001)
Case details for

Fortune v. Palomino

Case Details

Full title:WENDY FORTUNE, ET AL., Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. FABIAN PALOMINO…

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

Date published: Oct 23, 2001

Citations

287 A.D.2d 361 (N.Y. App. Div. 2001)
731 N.Y.S.2d 440

Citing Cases

Acevedo v. Ankit

Consequently, residency on the date the action was commenced controls for purposes of venue. Fortune v.…