From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Myoung Hee Yi v. Meitetsu Express

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Nov 16, 2010
78 A.D.3d 914 (N.Y. App. Div. 2010)

Opinion

No. 2009-09736.

November 16, 2010.

In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, the defendants appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Taylor, J.), dated September 22, 2009, which denied their motion pursuant to CPLR 510 (1) and 511 (b) for a change of venue from Queens County to Nassau County.

Rivkin Radler LLP, Uniondale, N.Y. (Evan H. Krinick and Cheryl F. Korman of counsel), for appellants.

Sim Park, LLP, New York, N.Y. (Sang J. Sim of counsel), for respondent.

Before: Rivera, J.P., Covello, Eng, Leventhal and Austin, JJ.


Ordered that the order is reversed, on the law, with costs, the defendants' motion pursuant to CPLR 510 (1) and 511 (b) for a change of venue from Queens County to Nassau County is granted, and the Clerk of the Supreme Court, Queens County, is directed to deliver to the Clerk of the Supreme Court, Nassau County, all papers filed in this action and certified copies of all minutes and entries (see CPLR 511 [d]).

For venue purposes, generally the sole residence of a foreign corporation is the county within the State in which its principal office is located, as designated in its application for authority to conduct business filed with the State of New York, or an amendment thereof (see CPLR 503 [c]; Business Corporation Law § 102 [a] [10]; Ashjian v Orion Power Holdings, Inc., 9 AD3d 440; Bailon v Avis Rent A Car, 270 AD2d 439, 440; Collins v Trigen Energy Corp., 210 AD2d 283). Thus, here, where the general rule applies, New York County was the residence of the defendant Meitetsu Express, a California corporation authorized to do business in New York State, as that was the county designated in its application for authority. Accordingly, since none of the parties maintained a residence in Queens County, the plaintiffs designation of Queens County as the place of trial was improper, and the Supreme Court erred in denying the defendants' motion for a change of venue from Queens County to Nassau County, where the plaintiff and the individual defendant resided and the accident occurred.


Summaries of

Myoung Hee Yi v. Meitetsu Express

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Nov 16, 2010
78 A.D.3d 914 (N.Y. App. Div. 2010)
Case details for

Myoung Hee Yi v. Meitetsu Express

Case Details

Full title:MYOUNG HEE YI, Respondent, v. MEITETSU EXPRESS et al., Appellants

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

Date published: Nov 16, 2010

Citations

78 A.D.3d 914 (N.Y. App. Div. 2010)
2010 N.Y. Slip Op. 8545
910 N.Y.S.2d 688

Citing Cases

Negron v. Nouveau Elevator Indus., Inc.

The venue of an action shall be placed “in the county in which one of the parties resided when it was…

Jakobsdottir v. Argo Corp.

Pursuant to CPLR 503[c], the sole residence of a domestic or foreign corporation is the county in which its…