From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Brady v. Exxon Company, U.S.A

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, First Department
Aug 17, 1989
153 A.D.2d 519 (N.Y. App. Div. 1989)

Opinion

August 17, 1989

Appeal from the Supreme Court, Bronx County (Jack Turret, J.).


Plaintiff James Brady sustained an injury to his eye when the nozzle of the hose on a gas pump malfunctioned on February 18, 1984 at an Exxon gas station located in Bardonia, New York, in Rockland County. On September 24, 1986 plaintiffs commenced this action in Bronx County by service of a summons and complaint. Venue was based upon their residence in Bronx County, New York.

CPLR 503 (a) states that "the place of trial shall be in the county in which one of the parties resided when it was commenced".

Third-party defendant Dover moved for a change of venue primarily on the grounds that plaintiffs were not residents of The Bronx. The evidence does not support movant's contention. From the affidavits submitted and the deposition testimony of the plaintiffs, it appears that when this action was commenced, the plaintiffs were residents of Bronx County. The fact that they had a home in Rockland County on the date of the accident or that they spent a part of each year in Ireland is not an indication of nonresidency in The Bronx at the time the action was commenced. Thus the motion court should not have ordered a change of venue from Bronx County.

Concur — Murphy, P.J., Ross, Ellerin and Smith, JJ.


Summaries of

Brady v. Exxon Company, U.S.A

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, First Department
Aug 17, 1989
153 A.D.2d 519 (N.Y. App. Div. 1989)
Case details for

Brady v. Exxon Company, U.S.A

Case Details

Full title:JAMES BRADY et al., Appellants, v. EXXON COMPANY, U.S.A., Respondent and…

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

Date published: Aug 17, 1989

Citations

153 A.D.2d 519 (N.Y. App. Div. 1989)
544 N.Y.S.2d 599

Citing Cases

Vazquez v. Clarke

Looking at this record as a whole, we see no reason to disturb Supreme Court's decision denying defendant's…

Martinez v. Semicevic

It is settled that a plaintiff may have two residences for venue purposes (Hammerman v Louis Watch Co., 7…