Opinion
6522N Index 157155/16
05-10-2018
Jessica KOCHAN, etc., et al., Plaintiffs–Appellants, v. TARGET CORPORATION, et al., Defendants–Respondents, Keylor LaPorta, et al., Defendants.
Gair, Gair, Conason, Rubinowitz, Bloom, Hershenhorn, Steigman & Mackauf, New York (D. Allen Zachary of counsel), for appellants. Simmons Jannace DeLuca, LLP, Hauppauge, (Allison Leibowitz of counsel), for respondents.
Gair, Gair, Conason, Rubinowitz, Bloom, Hershenhorn, Steigman & Mackauf, New York (D. Allen Zachary of counsel), for appellants.
Simmons Jannace DeLuca, LLP, Hauppauge, (Allison Leibowitz of counsel), for respondents.
Richter, J.P., Manzanet–Daniels, Webber, Moulton, JJ.
Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Joan M. Kenney, J.), entered May 8, 2017, which granted the motion of defendants Target Corporation and Target Enterprise Inc. (collectively Target) to change venue from New York County to Suffolk County, unanimously affirmed, without costs.
Supreme Court did not improvidently exercise its discretion in granting Target's motion to change venue to Suffolk County even though plaintiff properly placed venue in New York County based upon Target's principal place of business at the time the action was commenced (see CPLR 503[a], [c] ). The motor vehicle accident happened in Suffolk County, plaintiffs and codefendants live in that county, the decedent received her medical treatment there (see Lopez v. Chaliwit, 268 A.D.2d 377, 702 N.Y.S.2d 253 [1st Dept. 2000] ). Target also submitted the affidavits of two Suffolk County police officers, who averred that they were involved in the investigation including interviewing witnesses at the accident location and that they would be inconvenienced by having to travel to New York County because it would cause them to be absent from their police duties for a full day (see Kennedy v. C.F. Galleria at White Plains, 2 A.D.3d 222, 223, 769 N.Y.S.2d 526 [1st Dept. 2003] ).
That the police officers signed affidavits in favor of the motion to change venue establishes that they were aware of the action and demonstrates that they are willing to testify at trial. It was proper for the motion court to consider the police officers' convenience, because their testimony regarding their investigation as to how the accident happened bears on liability (see Hoogland v. Transport Expressway, Inc., 24 A.D.3d 191, 808 N.Y.S.2d 160 [1st Dept. 2005] ). Furthermore, the police officers' affidavits are not insufficient because they do not set forth their home addresses, since it is undisputed that they work in Suffolk County (see Gentry v. Finnigan, 110 A.D.3d 568, 973 N.Y.S.2d 560 [1st Dept. 2013] ; compare Nolan v. Mount Vernon Hosp., 172 A.D.2d 368, 568 N.Y.S.2d 409 [1st Dept. 1991] ).