From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Christomanos v. Vick

Supreme Court, Appellate Division, First Department, New York.
May 3, 2012
95 A.D.3d 461 (N.Y. App. Div. 2012)

Opinion

2012-05-3

Katherine T. CHRISTOMANOS, Plaintiff–Appellant, v. Danwatie VICK, Defendant–Respondent.

Scarcella Law Offices, White Plains (M. Sean Duffy of counsel) for appellant. Congdon, Flaherty, O'Callaghan, Reid, Donlon, Travis & Fishlinger, Uniondale (Kathleen D. Foley of counsel), for respondent.


Scarcella Law Offices, White Plains (M. Sean Duffy of counsel) for appellant. Congdon, Flaherty, O'Callaghan, Reid, Donlon, Travis & Fishlinger, Uniondale (Kathleen D. Foley of counsel), for respondent.

Order, Supreme Court, Bronx County (Alison Y. Tuitt, J.), entered February 17, 2011, which, in an action for personal injuries arising out of a motor vehicle accident, granted defendant's motion to change venue from Bronx County to Westchester County, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

Defendant showed that the venue chosen by plaintiff was improper since none of the parties resided in Bronx County when the action was commenced ( see Hernandez v. Seminatore, 48 A.D.3d 260, 851 N.Y.S.2d 172 [2008]; CPLR 503[a], 510[1] ). Defendant submitted, inter alia, the records of the Department of Motor Vehicles showing that she resided in Westchester County when the action was commenced and her affidavit stating that she exclusively lived in Westchester County at that time ( see Weiss v. Wal–Mart Stores E., L.P., 83 A.D.3d 461, 919 N.Y.S.2d 848 [2011] ).

In opposition, plaintiff failed to raise an issue of fact as to whether defendant resided in Bronx County when the action was commenced. Plaintiff submitted the police accident report, listing defendant's address *871 before she moved; an affidavit identifying defendant's former husband as the person on whom process was served; and records of defendant's voter registration in 2000, none of which is probative of defendant's residence when the action was commenced ( see e.g. Hernandez at 260, 851 N.Y.S.2d 172).

We have considered plaintiff's remaining contentions and find them unavailing.

SAXE, J.P., SWEENY, MOSKOWITZ, FREEDMAN, MANZANET–DANIELS, JJ., concur.


Summaries of

Christomanos v. Vick

Supreme Court, Appellate Division, First Department, New York.
May 3, 2012
95 A.D.3d 461 (N.Y. App. Div. 2012)
Case details for

Christomanos v. Vick

Case Details

Full title:Katherine T. CHRISTOMANOS, Plaintiff–Appellant, v. Danwatie VICK…

Court:Supreme Court, Appellate Division, First Department, New York.

Date published: May 3, 2012

Citations

95 A.D.3d 461 (N.Y. App. Div. 2012)
2012 N.Y. Slip Op. 3529
942 N.Y.S.2d 870

Citing Cases

New Yorkers for Students' Educ. Rights v. State

The state and governor are located in Albany County which is the place where the motion for a Preliminary…

Goldberg v. HSBC Sec. (USA), Inc.

Orlinsky's cross-moves to change venue to Surrogate's Court, King's County. As Orlinsky notes, as the Court…