From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Mejia v. J. Crew Operating Corp.

Supreme Court, Appellate Division, First Department, New York.
Jun 14, 2016
140 A.D.3d 505 (N.Y. App. Div. 2016)

Opinion

06-14-2016

Manuel MEJIA, Plaintiff–Appellant, v. J. CREW OPERATING CORP., et al., Defendants–Respondents, 770 Broadway Owner LLC, et al., Defendants.

Law Offices of Annette G. Hasapidis, Mt. Kisco (Annette G. Hasapidis of counsel), for appellant. Law Offices of Joseph J. Rava, White Plains (Matthew F. Rice of counsel), for respondents.


Law Offices of Annette G. Hasapidis, Mt. Kisco (Annette G. Hasapidis of counsel), for appellant.

Law Offices of Joseph J. Rava, White Plains (Matthew F. Rice of counsel), for respondents.

Opinion Order, Supreme Court, Bronx County (Fernando Tapia, J.), entered July 8, 2015, which granted the motion of defendants J. Crew Operating Corp. and Global Facility Management & Construction to change venue from Bronx County to Richmond County, unanimously reversed, on the law and the facts, without costs, and the motion denied.

As an initial matter, Supreme Court erred by treating defendants' motion to change venue as of right under CPLR 510(1) as having been made under CPLR 510(3).

Unless otherwise prescribed, venue is properly laid in the county where one of the parties resides when the action is commenced (CPLR 503[a] ). In making the motion under CPLR 510(1), defendants, as movants, assumed the burden to establish that plaintiff improperly designated Bronx County as the venue (see Fiallos v. New York Univ. Hosp., 85 A.D.3d 678, 926 N.Y.S.2d 483 [1st Dept.2011] ). Defendants' proof indicates that when seeking treatment at Lincoln Hospital on April 10, 2014, plaintiff gave a Richmond County address. However, that evidence does not demonstrate where plaintiff resided when this action was commenced five months later, in September 2014 (see id.; Corea v. Browne, 45 A.D.3d 623, 845 N.Y.S.2d 825 [2d Dept.2007] ).

In view of defendants' failure to meet their initial burden, it is unnecessary to consider the sufficiency of plaintiff's opposition to the motion (see e.g. Winegrad v. New York Univ. Med. Ctr., 64 N.Y.2d 851, 853, 487 N.Y.S.2d 316, 476 N.E.2d 642 [1985] ).

FRIEDMAN, J.P., SWEENY, WEBBER, GESMER, JJ., concur.


Summaries of

Mejia v. J. Crew Operating Corp.

Supreme Court, Appellate Division, First Department, New York.
Jun 14, 2016
140 A.D.3d 505 (N.Y. App. Div. 2016)
Case details for

Mejia v. J. Crew Operating Corp.

Case Details

Full title:Manuel MEJIA, Plaintiff–Appellant, v. J. CREW OPERATING CORP., et al.…

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

Date published: Jun 14, 2016

Citations

140 A.D.3d 505 (N.Y. App. Div. 2016)
32 N.Y.S.3d 491
2016 N.Y. Slip Op. 4678

Citing Cases

Valley Nat'l Bank v. GVC, Ltd.

On a motion to change venue, the burden is on the defendant to demonstrate that venue is improper (Moodie v…

Moodie v. Kehoe

In support of her motion to change venue, defendant submitted only a copy of the Police Accident Report,…