From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Doyle v. Berley

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
May 1, 1995
215 A.D.2d 349 (N.Y. App. Div. 1995)

Opinion

May 1, 1995

Appeal from the Supreme Court, Nassau County (Molloy, J.).


Ordered that the order is affirmed, with one bill of costs to the respondents appearing separately and filing separate briefs.

We agree with the Supreme Court that the occasional use by the defendant Bruce Flashner, of an apartment in New York County, a use which is connected with his monthly business trips to New York from his home in Illinois, does not render Dr. Flashner a resident of New York County for venue purposes (see, CPLR 503 [a]; Katz v Siroty, 62 A.D.2d 1011; Hammerman v Louis Watch Co., 7 A.D.2d 817; Oelkers v Hulseberg, 200 Misc. 352, affd 279 App. Div. 669). Bracken, J.P., O'Brien, Santucci and Florio, JJ., concur.


Summaries of

Doyle v. Berley

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
May 1, 1995
215 A.D.2d 349 (N.Y. App. Div. 1995)
Case details for

Doyle v. Berley

Case Details

Full title:ANN DOYLE, Appellant, v. STEVEN A. BERLEY et al., Respondents

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

Date published: May 1, 1995

Citations

215 A.D.2d 349 (N.Y. App. Div. 1995)
625 N.Y.S.2d 651

Citing Cases

Tower Ins. of New York v. Prosper

The Court of Appeals reversed the Appellate Division, concluding that the facts found by the lower court,…

Neary v. Tower Ins.

o. v. Pulido, 271 A.D.2d 57, 63 [2000] [ ... the Perdues did not reside at the premises at the time the…