From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Pezzuti v. Vining

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Fourth Department
Mar 4, 1974
44 A.D.2d 651 (N.Y. App. Div. 1974)

Opinion

March 4, 1974

Appeal from the Cayuga Special Term.

Present — Witmer, J.P., Moule, Cardamone, Simons and Mahoney, JJ.


Order unanimously reversed, with costs, appellants' motion granted and venue changed to Broome County. Memorandum: The respondents inadvertently placed venue of this action in Tompkins County where none of the parties reside. Pursuant to CPLR 510 (subd. 1) and CPLR 511, the appellants demanded that venue be removed to Broome County, where all of the parties reside. The respondents then moved for a change of venue to Cayuga County, the county where real property involved in the dispute is located, and the appellants cross-moved seeking the Broome County venue. Special Term changed the venue to Cayuga County. We view this action as transitory in nature since it is based upon an agreement made after the sales contract, some parties to which did not sign the agreement. The respondents' motion should have been denied and the appellants' motion granted and the venue changed to Broome County ( Upjohn v. First M.E. Church Soc., 156 App. Div. 147; 2 Weinstein-Korn-Miller, par. 503.01).


Summaries of

Pezzuti v. Vining

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Fourth Department
Mar 4, 1974
44 A.D.2d 651 (N.Y. App. Div. 1974)
Case details for

Pezzuti v. Vining

Case Details

Full title:ANTHONY L. PEZZUTI et al., Respondents, v. DONALD C. VINING et al.…

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

Date published: Mar 4, 1974

Citations

44 A.D.2d 651 (N.Y. App. Div. 1974)

Citing Cases

Carlton Grp., Ltd. v. Prop. Markets Grp., Inc.

Furthermore, contrary to the plaintiff's contention, CPLR 507 does not require the venue of this action to…