From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Vasquez v. Sonin

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, First Department
Mar 16, 1999
259 A.D.2d 340 (N.Y. App. Div. 1999)

Opinion

March 16, 1999

Appeal from the Supreme Court, Bronx County (Jerry Crispino, J.).


Plaintiff's selection of Bronx County as the venue was based on the Bronx address that appeared on the license and police accident report of defendant Sonin, the driver of the other car, who inadvertently admitted Bronx residency in her answer, but who subsequently demonstrated that the Bronx address was actually her office and mailing address and that at all relevant times her residence had been in Manhattan. Thus, while the IAS Court properly held that the Bronx was an improper county and that the action had to be transferred to a county of residence of one of the parties, either Westchester or New York, the county chosen should have been New York, plaintiff's alternative choice. The general rule that a plaintiff forfeits the right to select venue by choosing an improper venue in the first instance ( see, Roman v. Brereton, 182 A.D.2d 556) should not be applied where, as here, the choice of an improper venue was due to reliance reasonably placed on incorrect information contained in a license exhibited at the scene of an accident ( see, Vehicle and Traffic Law § 505; cf., McKenzie v. MAJ Tr., 204 A.D.2d 154; Pittman v. Maher, 202 A.D.2d 172, 176).

Concur — Ellerin, P. J., Nardelli, Williams and Rubin, JJ.


Summaries of

Vasquez v. Sonin

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, First Department
Mar 16, 1999
259 A.D.2d 340 (N.Y. App. Div. 1999)
Case details for

Vasquez v. Sonin

Case Details

Full title:MICHAEL VASQUEZ, Appellant, v. SHERRI B. SONIN et al., Respondents

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

Date published: Mar 16, 1999

Citations

259 A.D.2d 340 (N.Y. App. Div. 1999)
687 N.Y.S.2d 30

Citing Cases

Prawl v. Ajasin

Here, no such alternative is available; defendant's choice, Nassau County, is the only proper choice.…

Tri-State Consumers Ins. Co. v. HEPCO Heating & Plumbing, Inc.

(See generally Goercke v Kim Yong Kyun, 273 AD2d 110, 110 [1st Dept 2000].) Courts have held that a plaintiff…