From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Peretzman v. Elias

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, First Department
Nov 9, 1995
221 A.D.2d 192 (N.Y. App. Div. 1995)

Opinion

November 9, 1995

Appeal from the Supreme Court, New York County (Carol Arber, J.).


Pursuant to CPLR 503 (a), the place of trial shall be in the county in which one of the parties resided when the action commenced ( Berberich v York Scaffold Equip. Corp., 177 A.D.2d 451). Here, there is no question that New York County is not a proper county since none of the parties resided therein at the time of the commencement of the action.

"While a defendant who seeks a change of venue based upon an improper designation by a plaintiff must normally comply with the procedure of CPLR 511 and the time limits set forth therein, '[n]oncompliance with the statutory time requirements should not act as a bar where * * * a plaintiff's willful omissions and misleading statements regarding his residence are the cause of such noncompliance and the defendant moves promptly after ascertaining the true state of affairs.'" ( Roman v Brereton, 182 A.D.2d 556, 557, quoting Philogene v Fuller Auto Leasing, 167 A.D.2d 178, 179.)

Plaintiffs failed to indicate their residence in the summons and complaint they filed in May 1993, but rather stated the basis of venue in New York County as plaintiff's business address. Defendant served his answer on or about July 30, 1993, and immediately began attempting to ascertain and verify plaintiffs' residence. Only six days later, on August 5, 1993, defendant made a demand for a change of venue to Nassau County pursuant to CPLR 511. Based on plaintiffs' willful omission of their residence, the belated service of defendant's demand is excusable.

Thereafter, defendant did not receive written acknowledgement by plaintiffs of their residence until November 1993. In addition, claiming that they never received it, plaintiffs never responded to defendant's demand. In light of plaintiffs' initial willful omission and continued failures and delays, defendant moved within a reasonably prompt period and his meritorious motion for a change of venue was properly granted by the IAS Court acting within its sound discretion.

Concur — Sullivan, J.P., Ellerin, Wallach, Asch and Tom, JJ.


Summaries of

Peretzman v. Elias

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, First Department
Nov 9, 1995
221 A.D.2d 192 (N.Y. App. Div. 1995)
Case details for

Peretzman v. Elias

Case Details

Full title:LEE PERETZMAN et al., Appellants, v. DAVID ELIAS, Respondent

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

Date published: Nov 9, 1995

Citations

221 A.D.2d 192 (N.Y. App. Div. 1995)
633 N.Y.S.2d 164

Citing Cases

Accardi v. Kaufmann

Thus, his motion became one addressed to the motion court's discretion ( see Thomas v Guttikonda, 68 AD3d at…

Leopold v. Goldstein

Supreme Court improvidently exercised its discretion in granting the motion. Venue was properly placed in New…