From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

P.T.R. Co. v. Teitelbaum

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Dec 15, 2003
2 A.D.3d 609 (N.Y. App. Div. 2003)

Opinion

2003-00178.

Decided December 15, 2003.

In an action, inter alia, to recover damages for breach of contract, the defendant appeals, as limited by her brief, from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Westchester County (Rudolph, J.), entered November 18, 2002, as denied her motion pursuant to CPLR 503 and CPLR 511(b) to change the venue of the action from Westchester County to Kings County.

Neiman Ginsburg Mairanz, P.C. (Theodore T. Mairanz and Marvin Neiman of counsel), for appellant.

Bleakley Platt Schmidt, LLP, White Plains, N.Y. (William P. Harrington and Kenneth C. Brown of counsel), for respondent.

Before: HOWARD MILLER, STEPHEN G. CRANE, JJ.


DECISION ORDER

ORDERED that the order is affirmed insofar as appealed from, with costs.

The defendant failed to move for a change of venue within 15 days after service of her demand Therefore, the motion was properly denied ( see CPLR 511[b]; Runcie v. Cross County Shopping Mall, 268 A.D.2d 577). The defendant's claim that she was misled as to the plaintiff's actual residence is not supported by the record. Accordingly, there exists no basis for her contention that her noncompliance with the time limit should be overlooked since she moved promptly after discovering the plaintiff's true residence.

RITTER, J.P., SMITH, FRIEDMANN, H. MILLER and CRANE, JJ., concur.


Summaries of

P.T.R. Co. v. Teitelbaum

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Dec 15, 2003
2 A.D.3d 609 (N.Y. App. Div. 2003)
Case details for

P.T.R. Co. v. Teitelbaum

Case Details

Full title:P.T.R. CO., respondent, v. HANNA TEITELBAUM, ETC., appellant

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

Date published: Dec 15, 2003

Citations

2 A.D.3d 609 (N.Y. App. Div. 2003)
768 N.Y.S.2d 387

Citing Cases

Thomas v. Guttikonda

Thus, their motion "became one addressed to the court's discretion" ( Callanan Indus. v Sovereign Constr.…

Silvera v. Strike

The Supreme Court properly denied that branch of the defendant's motion which was pursuant to CPLR 510 (1)…