From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Lopez v. Robbins

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Feb 10, 2000
269 A.D.2d 364 (N.Y. App. Div. 2000)

Opinion

Submitted December 22, 1999

February 10, 2000

In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, the plaintiff appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Garson, J.), dated June 9, 1999, which granted the defendant's motion to change the venue of the action from the Supreme Court, Kings County, to the Supreme Court, Suffolk County.

Donald Friedman, P.C., Brooklyn, N.Y. (Mitchell Gorkin of counsel), for appellant.

Robert J. Passarelli, Babylon, N.Y. (Robert A. Abiuso of counsel), for respondent.

LAWRENCE J. BRACKEN, J.P., FRED T. SANTUCCI, MYRIAM J. ALTMAN, WILLIAM D. FRIEDMANN, HOWARD MILLER, JJ.


DECISION ORDER

ORDERED that the order is reversed, on the law, with costs, the motion is denied, and the Clerk of the Supreme Court, Suffolk County, is directed to deliver to the Clerk of the Supreme Court, Kings County, all papers filed in this action and certified copies of all minutes and entries (see, CPLR 511[d]).

We agree with the plaintiff's contention that the defendant did not move for a change of venue based on the designation of an improper county (CPLR 510 ) within the 15 days required by CPLR 511(b). Accordingly, the defendant is not entitled to a change of venue as of right (see, Singh v. Becher, 249 A.D.2d 154 ; Newman v. Physicians' Reciprocal Insurers, 204 A.D.2d 210 ; Pittman v. Maher, 202 A.D.2d 172, 174 ;Korman v. City of New York, 89 A.D.2d 888 ; Matter of D.M.C. Constr. Corp. v. Nash Steel Corp., 70 A.D.2d 635, 637 ). Contrary to the defendant's contention, this issue may be raised for the first time on appeal because it is one of law which appears on the face of the record and could not have been avoided if it had been raised at the proper juncture (see, Block v. Magee, 146 A.D.2d 730 ).

Furthermore, the Supreme Court improvidently exercised its discretion in granting the defendant a change of venue pursuant toCPLR 510(3). The defendant failed to show that the convenience of nonparty witnesses would be served by the change (see, Cumberbatch v. Gatehouse Motel and Restaurant, 265 A.D.2d 370; [2d Dept., Oct. 12, 1999]; Roberto v. M.C. E.D. Beck, 254 A.D.2d 404 ; O'Brien v. Vassar Bros. Hosp., 207 A.D.2d 169, 172-173 ; Lundgren v. Lovejoy, Wasson, Lundgren Ashton, 82 A.D.2d 912).


Summaries of

Lopez v. Robbins

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Feb 10, 2000
269 A.D.2d 364 (N.Y. App. Div. 2000)
Case details for

Lopez v. Robbins

Case Details

Full title:RAYMOND LOPEZ, appellant, v. RICHARD ROBBINS, respondent

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

Date published: Feb 10, 2000

Citations

269 A.D.2d 364 (N.Y. App. Div. 2000)
702 N.Y.S.2d 571

Citing Cases

Figueroa v. Stromfeld

ORDERED that the order is reversed, on the law, with costs, and the Clerk of the Supreme Court, Richmond…

Deltoro v. Arya

Ordinarily, the action would have been untimely, however, by Executive Order Number 113.28 (hereinafter the…