theCPLRblog

Properly mistaken venue

CPLR § 510 Grounds for change of place of trial

 CPLR R. 511 Change of place of trial

Astillero v Abramov, 2012 NY Slip Op 00736 (1st Dept., 2012)

Plaintiff initially chose an improper venue in New York County. However, plaintiff selected this venue based on Department of Motor Vehicle records, which indicated that defendant Asia Abramov resided in New York County. Defendant Abramov had recently moved to Queens County, but failed to notify the Department of Motor Vehicle as required by VTL § 505(5). Under these circumstances, plaintiff did not forfeit her right to choose a venue by her initial choice of a venue that turned out to be improper (see Vasquez v Sonin, 259 AD2d 340, 341 [1999]).

 

2103

CPLR R. 2103 Service of papers

Simon v Usher, 2011 NY Slip Op 07305 (2011)

The question presented for our review is whether the five-day extension under CPLR 2103(b)(2) applies to the 15-day time period prescribed by CPLR 511(b) to move for change of venue when a defendant serves its demand for change of venue by mail. We hold that it does.

On July 17, 2009, plaintiffs Allen and Barbara Simon commenced this medical malpractice action against defendants in Supreme Court, Bronx County. Defendants Sol M. Usher, Sol M. Usher, M.D., Maxwell M. Chait, White Plains Hospital Center and Hartsdale Medical Group, P.C., (collectively, the Usher defendants) served their verified answers and demands to change venue to Westchester County on August 20, 2009. Twenty days later, on September 9th, the Usher defendants moved to change venue to Westchester County on the grounds that, except for Usher and Usher, M.D., P.C., all of the defendants and the plaintiffs reside in Westchester County; Usher's and Usher, M.D., P.C.'s primary offices are in Westchester County; and plaintiff Allen Simon received the medical care at issue in Westchester County. The remaining defendants Sheldon Alter, Mid-Westchester Medical Associates, LLP, Westchester Medical Group, P.C. and Marianne Monahan served their answer on September 3rd and filed an affirmation in support of the motion to change venue on September 15th.

Supreme Court granted the motion to change venue to Westchester because "none of the parties to this action reside in Bronx County." The Appellate Division unanimously reversed and denied the motion. The court, among other things, rejected the Usher defendants' motion for a change of venue as untimely because it was made 20 days after service of the demand. It concluded that CPLR 2103(b)(2)'s five-day extension for time periods measured from service by mail did not apply to CPLR 511. The Appellate Division granted the Usher defendants leave to appeal to this Court and certified the following question for review: "Was the order of this court, which reversed the order of the Supreme Court, properly made?" We answer the certified question in the negative and now reverse.

When construing a statute, we must begin with the language of the statute and "give effect to its plain meaning" (Kramer v Phoenix Life Ins. Co., 15 NY3d 539, 552 [2010]). Pursuant to CPLR 511(a), a defendant shall serve with the answer, or prior to service of the answer, a demand "for change of place of trial on the ground that the county designated for that purpose is not a proper county." Subsection (b) permits defendant to "move to change the place of trial within fifteen days after service of the demand, unless within five days after such service plaintiff serves a written consent to change the place of trial to that specified by the defendant." CPLR 2103 provides "where a period of time prescribed by law is measured from the service of a paper and service is by mail, five days shall be added to the prescribed period." "The extension provided in CPLR 2103(b)(2) constitutes legislative recognition of and compensation for delays inherent in mail delivery" (Sultana v Nassau Hosp., 188 AD2d 627 [2d Dept 1992]).

Here, defendants who served their motion papers by mail 20 days after they served their demand to change venue are entitled to a five-day extension of the 15-day period prescribed in CPLR 511(2). Plaintiffs, citing Sultana, contend that defendants cannot rely upon section 2103(b)(2) for the five-day extension because the motion did not constitute response papers. Section 2103(b) contains no language restricting its application to instances where a party is responding to papers served by an adversary. Moreover, defendants are permitted to move to change venue only in the event that plaintiffs do not consent in writing within five days after service of the demand. Although the motion papers are not directly responding to papers served by plaintiffs, defendants are effectively responding to plaintiffs' lack of consent to the change of venue. Simply put, defendants' motion papers are not initiatory and, because the demand was served by mail, defendants were entitled to the benefit of section 2103(b)(2)'s five-day extension.

Accordingly, the order of the Appellate Division should be reversed, with costs, and the case remitted to that court for consideration of issues raised but not determined on the appeal to that court, and the certified question answered in the negative.


PIGOTT, J. (dissenting):

While I fear adding further confusion to what, up until now, seemed to be a fairly simple statute, I respectfully dissent from the judicial creation of what I will label an "anticipatory five-day rule" amending CPLR § 2103 (b) (2).

On July 17, 2009, plaintiffs commenced this medical malpractice action against multiple defendants by filing their summons and complaint in Supreme Court, Bronx County, basing their choice of venue on the fact that defendant Sol M. Usher had a place of business in the Bronx. Defendants answered by mail on August 20, 2009 and, pursuant to CPLR § 511 (b), simultaneously served a demand for a change of venue from Bronx County to Westchester County. Plaintiffs did not respond within five days after the date of service of the demand, i.e. by August 25, 2009. This permitted defendants, if they so chose, to move to change the place of trial by filing a motion in either Bronx or Westchester County on or before September 4, 2009. However, defendants' motion was served by mail on September 9, 2009.

Plaintiffs objected, and I think properly so, that the motion was untimely, under CPLR 511 (b), which provides that a defendant that has served a written demand for a change of venue "may move to change the place of trial within fifteen days after service of the demand, unless within five days after such service plaintiff serves a written consent" (emphasis added). Defendants enlisted CPLR 2103 (b) (2), to argue that their motion was timely because it was served within twenty days of service of their demand, despite the fact that CPLR § 511 specifies fifteen days. Supreme Court, Bronx County, granted defendants' motion to change the venue, but the Appellate Division reversed, and denied the motion, holding that defendants "were not entitled to the five-day extension in CPLR 2103 (b) (2) for time periods measured from service by mail" (73 AD3d 415 [1st Dept 2010]).

Under CPLR 2103 (b) (2), the statute being mangled here, "where a period of time prescribed by law is measured from the service of a paper and service is by mail, five days shall be added to the prescribed period." The legislative history of the statute makes it abundantly clear that its purpose is to give a party, on whom a paper has been served by mail, additional time to respond, because of the delays inherent in mailing. The five-day extension was created in the early 1980s (L 1982, ch 20, § 1, effective January 1, 1983); it had been three days before. At that time, the Advisory Committee on Civil Practice clearly described the extension as applying to a party's "responding time" or "responding period" (1982 Report of the Advisory Committee on Civil Practice to the Chief Administrator of the Courts of the State of New York, 1982 McKinney's Session Laws of NY, at 2651). The Committee wrote that "[t]he traditional three days by which a responding period is extended when the paper to be responded to is served by mail has proved too short in recent years, as the mails have been increasingly delayed" (id. at 2651-2652 [emphasis added]). The legislative intent could not be more obvious. The purpose of CPLR 2103 (b) (2) was to compensate for mail delays, and allow an adverse party more time to assemble responsive papers.

The Appellate Division has understood this, writing that "[t]he extension provided in CPLR 2103 (b) (2) constitutes legislative recognition of and compensation for delays inherent in mail delivery" (Sultana v Nassau Hosp., 188 AD2d 647 [2d Dept 1992], quoting Corradetti v Dales Used Cars, 102 AD2d 272, 273 [3d Dept 1984]) and "does not benefit the party making the service by mail" (Thompson v Cuadrado, 277 AD2d 151, 152 [1st Dept 2000]; see also Harvey v New York State Dep't of Envtl. Conservation, 235 AD2d 625 [3d Dept 1997]). Consistently, Professor Siegel, recognizing the intent of CPLR 2103, has noted that the statute "provides that whenever a period of time is measured from the service of a paper and the paper is served by mail, the party required to take the responsive step gets 5 additional days. This recognizes that the service was deemed complete upon posting and it compensates for the delay in mail delivery. . . . The 5 days are added to the stated period when any mail-served paper requires a responsive step within a stated period" (Siegel, NY Prac § 202, at 346 [5th ed] [emphases added]).

It is noteworthy that the Legislature, in the context of measuring time from the service of a judgment or order, has taken the trouble to add a provision that clarifies that "[w]here service of the judgment or order to be appealed from and written notice of its entry is made by mail . . . [under CPLR 2103], the additional days provided by such paragraphs shall apply to this action, regardless of which party serves the judgment or order with notice of entry" (CPLR 5513 [d]). This 1999 amendment to CPLR 5513 gives an additional five days to take an appeal when a notice of entry is served by mail, regardless of which party serves the notice of entry. The Legislature has not acted to alter statutes other than CPLR 5513, so as to make corresponding clarifications in areas other than appeals.

Here, defendants benefitted from the rule that papers are deemed served upon mailing - in this case on August 20. Plaintiffs, who would have received the papers some days after that, would have known that, while the statute requires a response within five days, i.e. by August 25, they could add five days and serve their response, if they chose to make one, on or before August 30. The five-day timetable is indisputably subject to extension under CPLR 2103 (b) (2), because it is a responsive deadline (Podolsky by Podolsky v Nevele Winter Sports, 233 AD2d 605, 605-606 [3d Dept 1996]; Hughes v Nigro, 108 AD2d 722, 723 [2d Dept 1985]). Defendants, on the other hand, were "not directly responding" to any papers, as the majority concedes (majority op at 4). Having no doubt marked plaintiffs' August 30 deadline on their calendar, defendants had until September 4, to serve, by mail if they chose, their motion for change of place of trial. That they did not is, in my view, fatal to their motion.

Defendants argue that plaintiffs' reading of CPLR 2103 (b) (2) creates practical difficulties for litigants. Given that plaintiffs have 10 days to decide about consent, the 15-day deadline for the motion means that defendants may have only 5 days between a service by mail of consent to change of venue and the motion deadline. If the mailing delay is 3 days, the time for preparing and filing the motion would end up being 2 days. Giving both parties the benefits of the extended period might be a good idea, practically. But one need only refer to CPLR § 2214 (b), which allows reply papers to be served by mail one day before the return date of a motion, to know that the Rules have not always been drafted with practicality in mind. In such a situation, an appellate court may signal the practical difficulties to the Legislature, so that it may consider amending the statute. But it is up to the Legislature to enact such a law.

In light of the legislative history and standard interpretations of CPLR 2103 (b) (2) in case law and commentary, I think it clear that 2103 (b) benefits only the party responding to the service, and I would therefore affirm the order of the Appellate Division.

Venue and Jurisdiction

CPLR § 510 Grounds for change of place of trial

CPLR R. 511 Change of place of trial

CPLR R. 3211(a)(8)the court has not jurisdiction of the person of the defendant

CPLR § 302 Personal jurisdiction by acts of non-domiciliaries
(a) Acts which are the basis of jurisdiction
(1) transacts any business within the state or contracts anywhere to supply goods or services in the state

Non Con

CPLR R. 327 Inconvenient forum

CRT Invs., Ltd. v BDO Seidman, LLP, 2011 NY Slip Op 04816 (App. DIv., 1st 2011)

This litigation arises out of plaintiffs' investment in the Ascot Fund, Limited, a Cayman Islands hedge fund audited by BDO Tortuga, which was a "feeder fund" for Ascot Partners, L.P., a New York hedge fund audited by BDO Seidman. Plaintiffs asserted causes of action for fraud, aiding and abetting fraud, negligence, and gross negligence against these outside auditors for failing to disclose that the fund was ultimately managed by Bernard Madoff.

Plaintiffs failed to meet their burden of demonstrating the existence of personal jurisdiction over BDO Tortuga under New York's long arm statute (Pramer S.C.A. v Abaplus Intl. Corp., 76 AD3d 89, 95 [2010]). Plaintiffs failed to rebut defendant's affidavit (see Roldan v Dexter Folder Co., 178 AD2d 589, 590 [1991]), which established that BDO Tortuga has no presence in New York, that it performed the audit of the Ascot Fund in the Cayman Islands, pursuant to engagement letters executed in, and sent from, the Cayman Islands, and that there were only limited emails with anyone in New York "affiliated in any way with Ascot Fund." Although plaintiffs argue that BDO Tortuga relied upon the audit work that BDO Seidman had performed with respect to the existence and valuation of Ascot Partners and Ascot Fund's investments, there is no basis to conclude that BDO Tortuga should have reasonably expected to defend its actions in New York (see Kreutter v McFadden Oil Corp., 71 NY2d 460, 466 [1988]). All of the relevant parties to the cause of action (plaintiff, defendant, and audit client), and all of the work that BDO Tortuga performed were in the Cayman Islands. Nor does sending a few emails and engagement letters into New York alter this result (see Kimco Exch. Place Corp. v Thomas Benz, Inc., 34 AD3d 433, 434 [2006], lv denied 9 NY3d 803 [2007]).

Plaintiffs' alternative argument, that BDO Tortuga is subject to personal jurisdiction under CPLR 302(a)(3), is also unavailing. In the context of a commercial tort, where the damage is solely economic, the situs of commercial injury is where the original critical events associated with the action or dispute took place, not where any financial loss or damages occurred (see O'Brien v Hackensack Univ. Med. Ctr., 305 AD2d 199, 201-02 [2003]; Mid-Atlantic Residential Invs. Ltd. Partnership v McGuire, 166 AD2d 205, 206-07 [1990]). Plaintiff's claim that it was sold the investment in New York is irrelevant, because the injury did not arise out of its purchase of the investment here, but, rather, out of BDO Tortuga's alleged failure to appropriately perform its audit services. Defendants' affidavit also established that BDO Tortuga did not derive "substantial revenue" from interstate or international commerce (see LaMarca v Pak-Mor Mfg. Co., 95 NY2d 210, 214 [2000]).

Berk v Linnehan, 2011 NY Slip Op 04820 (App. Div., 1st 2011)

The court properly denied defendants' motion for a change of venue to Suffolk County. Defendants failed to make the requisite showing that their allegedly inconvenienced non-party witnesses were actually contacted and were willing to testify (see Gissen v Boy Scouts of Am., 26 AD3d 289 [2006]; Gluck v Pond House Farm, Inc., 271 AD2d 334 [2000]; CPLR 510[3]). Defendants also failed to set forth the substance and materiality of the testimony of at least two of the three witnesses.

Koskar v Ford Motor Co., 2011 NY Slip Op 04636 (App. Div., 2nd 2011)

The doctrine of forum non conveniens permits a court to stay or dismiss an action when, although it may have jurisdiction over a claim, the court determines that "in the interest of substantial justice the action should be heard in another forum" (CPLR 327[a]). The defendant bears the burden on a motion to dismiss on the ground of forum non conveniens to "demonstrate relevant private or public interest factors which militate against accepting the litigation" (Islamic Republic of Iran v Pahlavi, 62 NY2d 474, 479, cert denied 469 US 1108). "On such a motion, the Supreme Court is to weigh the parties' residencies, the location of the witnesses and any hardship caused by the choice of forum, the availability of an alternative forum, the situs of the action, and the burden on the New York court system" (Tiger Sourcing Ltd. v GMAC Commercial Fin. Corporation-Can., 66 AD3d 1002, 1003; see Prestige Brands, Inc. v Hogan & Hartson, LLP, 65 AD3d 1028; Turay v Beam Bros. Trucking, Inc., 61 AD3d 964, 966). No one factor is dispositive (see Turay v Beam Bros. Trucking, Inc., 61 AD3d at 966; Brinson v Chrysler Fin., 43 AD3d 846, 848). The Supreme Court's determination should not be disturbed unless the court improvidently exercised its discretion or failed to consider the relevant factors (see Smolik v Turner Constr. Co., 48 AD3d 452, 453-454; Brinson v Chrysler Fin., 43 AD3d at 848). 

Here, the defendant Sail Trans Corp. failed to meet its burden of establishing that New York is an inconvenient forum for this consolidated action. Thus, the Supreme Court's determination denying that branch of its motion which was to dismiss the complaint insofar as asserted against it on the ground of forum non conveniens was not an improvident exercise of discretion (see Islamic Republic of Iran v Pahlavi, 62 NY2d 474; Salzstein v Salzstein, 70 AD3d 806; Prestige Brands, Inc. v Hogan & Hartson, LLP, 65 AD3d 1028).

That branch of the appellant's motion which was to dismiss the complaint insofar as asserted against it pursuant to CPLR 3211(a)(4) was not addressed by the Supreme Court and, thus, remains pending and undecided (see Katz v Katz, 68 AD2d 536, 542-543).

U.S. Bank, Natl. Assn. v Arias, 2011 NY Slip Op 05487 (App. DIv., 2nd 2011)

By order to show cause dated January 27, 2010, the defendant moved pursuant to CPLR 5015(a)(4) to vacate the judgment of foreclosure and sale, and pursuant to CPLR 3211(a)(8) to dismiss the complaint insofar as asserted against him for lack of personal jurisdiction. The Supreme Court denied the defendant's motion in its entirety, without conducting a hearing. We reverse. 

"A process server's affidavit of service constitutes prima facie evidence of proper service" (Scarano v Scarano, 63 AD3d 716, 716). "Although a defendant's sworn denial of receipt of service generally rebuts the presumption of proper service established by the process server's affidavit and necessitates an evidentiary hearing (see Skyline Agency v Coppotelli, Inc., 117 AD2d 135, 139), no hearing is required where the defendant fails to swear to specific facts to rebut the statements in the process server's affidavits'" (Scarano v Scarano, 63 AD3d at 716, quoting Simonds v Grobman, 277 AD2d 369, 370).

Here, the Supreme Court erred in determining the defendant's motion without first conducting a hearing. The process server's affidavits constituted prima facie evidence of proper service (see Scarano v Scarano, 63 AD3d at 716). However, to rebut that showing, the defendant submitted a sworn denial of service containing specific facts to rebut the presumption of proper service. Furthermore, in replying to contentions raised by the plaintiff in its opposition papers, the defendant submitted documentary evidence supporting his claim that he did not reside at the subject premises or at the Long Island City address in 2008. The defendant's submission was sufficient to rebut the prima facie showing of proper service, and to necessitate a hearing. Accordingly, the matter must be remitted to the Supreme Court, Queens County, for a hearing to determine whether the defendant was properly served with process pursuant to CPLR 308(2), and for a new determination thereafter of his motion to vacate the judgment of foreclosure and sale and to dismiss the complaint insofar as asserted against him for lack of personal jurisdiction.

Sufficient Start

Marist Coll. v Brady, 2011 NY Slip Op 04638 (App. Div., 2nd 2011)

Under the circumstances, the Supreme Court properly exercised its discretion in deciding, on the merits, that branch of the appellants' application which was pursuant to CPLR 3211(a)(8) to dismiss the complaint insofar as asserted against them for lack of personal jurisdiction (see Fugazy v Fugazy, 44 AD3d 613, 614). As the party seeking to assert personal jurisdiction, the plaintiff bears the ultimate burden of proof on this issue (see Alden Personnel, Inc. v David, 38 AD3d 697, 698; Brandt v Toraby, 273 AD2d 429, 430). To successfully oppose a motion to dismiss pursuant to CPLR 3211(a)(8) on the ground that discovery on the issue of personal jurisdiction is necessary, the plaintiff did not need to make a prima facie showing of jurisdiction, but instead only needed to set forth "a sufficient start, and [show its] position not to be frivolous" (Peterson v Spartan Indus., 33 NY2d 463, 467; see Shore Pharm. Providers, Inc. v Oakwood Care Ctr., Inc., 65 AD3d 623, 624; American BankNote Corp. v Daniele, 45 AD3d 338, 340; Cordero v City of New York, 236 AD2d 577, 578).

Since the plaintiff established that facts " may exist'" to exercise personal jurisdiction over the appellants and has made a "sufficient start" to warrant further discovery on that issue, the Supreme Court properly denied that branch of the appellants' application which was pursuant to CPLR 3211(a)(8) to dismiss the complaint insofar as asserted against them for lack of personal jurisdiction (Peterson v Spartan Indus., 33 NY2d at 467; see Shore Pharm. Providers, Inc. v Oakwood Care Ctr., Inc., 65 AD3d at 624; Castillo v Star Leasing Co., 69 AD3d 551, 552; cf. Lang v Wycoff Hgts. Med. Ctr., 55 AD3d 793, 794; Roldan v Dexter Folder Co., 178 AD2d 589, 589). However, since the plaintiff failed to demonstrate, prima facie, that the appellants were subject to the Supreme Court's long-arm jurisdiction pursuant to CPLR 302(a)(3)(ii) (cf. Alden Personnel, Inc. v David, 38 AD3d at 698), we modify the order appealed from to allow the appellants to seek dismissal of the complaint pursuant to CPLR 3211(a)(8) upon the completion of discovery (see Ying Jun Chen v Lei Shi, 19 AD3d 407, 407-408; Lettieri v Cushing, 80 AD3d 574, 575-576).

HBK Master Fund L.P. v Troika Dialog USA, Inc., 2011 NY Slip Op 05569 (App. Div., 1st 2011)

Plaintiffs made a "sufficient start" in demonstrating that the Russian defendants were doing business in New York through their direct or indirect subsidiaries to warrant further discovery on the issue of personal jurisdiction, including whether the parents exercised control over the subsidiaries and are therefore subject to New York's long-arm jurisdiction (see Peterson v Spartan Indus., 33 NY2d 463, 467 [1974]; Edelman v Taittinger, S.A., 298 AD2d 301, 302 [2002]).

OrthoTec, LLC v Healthpoint Capital, LLC, 2011 NY Slip Op 04533 (App. Div., 1st 2011)

We do not find that "in the interest of substantial justice the action should be heard in" France (see CPLR 327[a]). "Generally, unless the balance is strongly in favor of the defendant, the plaintiff's choice of forum should rarely be disturbed" (Anagnostou v Stifel, 204 AD2d 61, 61 [1994] [internal quotation marks and citations omitted]). This is true even though plaintiff is not a New York resident (see Travelers Cas. & Sur. Co. v Honeywell Intl. Inc., 48 AD3d 225, 226 [2008]; Bank Hapoalim [Switzerland] Ltd. v Banca Intesa S.p.A., 26 AD3d 286, 287 [2006]). The fact that defendants are New York residents weighs against forum non conveniens dismissal (see e.g. Anagnostou, 204 AD2d at 62). Even if some documents will have to be translated from French into English, that does not require dismissal (see e.g. American BankNote Corp. v Daniele, 45 AD3d 338, 340 [2007]).

Non-Con and venue

CPLR § 510 Grounds for change of place of trial

CPLR R. 511 Change of place of trial

Otero v Davis, 2011 NY Slip Op 03191 (App. Div., 1st 2011)

Defendant failed to meet her burden to establish that New York is an inconvenient forum for this action (see Islamic Republic of Iran v Pahlavi, 62 NY2d 474, 478-479 [1984], cert denied 469 US 1108 [1985]; Bank Hapoalim [Switzerland] Ltd. v Banca Intesa S.p.A., 26 AD3d 286, 287 [2006]). There is nothing in the record to suggest that the court did not properly consider the relevant factors (see Pahlavi at 479).

Mann v Janyear Trading Corp., 2011 NY Slip Op 03192 (App. Div., 1st 2011)

The untimeliness of defendants' demand for a change of venue and the subsequent motion is excusable because the summons, complaint, and bill of particulars misleadingly indicated that plaintiff resided in Bronx County (see Philogene v Fuller Auto Leasing, 167 AD2d 178 [1990]). Furthermore, the record shows that defendants promptly moved only days after ascertaining that the statements made by plaintiff were misleading (see id.).

Regarding the merits, the motion, which was based on plaintiff's designation of an improper county (CPLR 510[1]), should have been granted and venue changed to Kings County (defendants' residence). Plaintiff's assertion that she resided in Bronx County is untenable in light of her deposition testimony. When asked if she ever resided at her parents' residence in the Bronx "at any time during 2006," which was when the accident occurred and the action was commenced, plaintiff replied "no" and that she had lived in New York County during the relevant time (see Santulli v Santulli, 228 AD2d 247, 248 [1996]).

Mohsin v Port Auth. of N.Y. & N.J., 2011 NY Slip Op 03119 (App. Div., 1st 2011)

Defendants' moving papers were deficient inasmuch as they failed to provide the names, addresses and occupation of prospective non-party witnesses, the proposed testimony, the witnesses' willingness to testify, and that the witnesses will be inconvenienced by the present venue (see Jacobs v Banks Shapiro Gettinger Waldinger & Brennan, LLP, 9 AD3d 299 [2004]); the convenience of party witnesses is not a factor (see Gissen v Boy Scouts of Am., 26 AD3d 289 [2006]). The affidavits submitted for the first time in defendants' reply papers should not have been considered by the court, as they improperly raised new facts not directly responsive to plaintiff's opposition, which merely highlighted the deficiency of defendants' initial papers (see Root v Brotmann, 41 AD3d 247 [2007]; Job v Subaru Leasing Corp., 30 AD3d 159 [2006]).

Weiss v Wal-Mart Stores E., L.P., 2011 NY Slip Op 02814 (App. Div., 1st 2011)

Defendant met its initial burden of establishing that the venue chosen by plaintiff was improper (see Hernandez v Seminatore, 48 AD3d 260 [2008]; CPLR 510[a]). Defendant submitted proof indicating that plaintiff's claimed residence in New York County was an office building, not an apartment building. Defendant also submitted motor vehicle records showing that plaintiff resided in Orange County at all relevant times (see Collins v Glenwood Mgt. Cor., 25 AD3d 447, 448 [2006]. Plaintiff's conclusory affidavit attesting to her New York County residence was insufficient to rebut defendant's proof (see Furlow v Braeubrun, 259 AD2d 417 [1999]). Furthermore, since plaintiff forfeited the right to select the venue by choosing an improper venue in the first instance (see Roman v Brereton, 182 AD2d 556 [1992]), venue is properly placed in Suffolk County, defendant's designated residence for venue purposes.

On Venue

CPLR § 510 Grounds for change of place of trial

CPLR R. 511 Change of place of trial

Accardi v Kaufmann, 2011 NY Slip Op 01775 (App. Div., 2nd 2011)

A demand to change venue based on the designation of an improper county (see CPLR 510[1]) "shall be served with the answer or before the answer is served" (CPLR 511[a]; see Thomas v Guttikonda, 68 AD3d 853, 854). Since the defendant Trevor Kaufmann did not serve his demand for a change of venue until after he served his answer, he was not entitled to change venue as of right (see Thomas v Guttikonda, 68 AD3d at 854; Jeffrey L. Rosenberg & Assoc., LLC v Lajaunie, 54 AD3d 813, 816). Thus, his motion became one addressed to the motion court's discretion (see Thomas v Guttikonda, 68 AD3d at 854; Jeffrey L. Rosenberg & Assoc., LLC v Lajaunie, 54 AD3d at 816).

The Supreme Court providently exercised its discretion in granting Kaufmann's motion to change the venue from Nassau County to Suffolk County. None of the parties resided in Nassau County at the time the action was commenced (see CPLR 503[a]; Peretzman v Elias, 221 AD2d 192). The plaintiff omitted from the summons the basis for placing the venue in Nassau County, indicating only that he was a resident of New York State (see CPLR 305[a]; Peretzman v Elias, 221 AD2d at 192; Philogene v Fuller Auto Leasing, 167 AD2d 178). Further, Kaufmann moved promptly to change venue after ascertaining the plaintiff's true residence (see O'Connor v Roman Catholic Diocese of Rockville Ctr., 231 AD2d 700; Philogene v Fuller Auto Leasing, 167 AD2d at 179).

CPLR § 510 venue properly changed. And other stuff ( R. 511; § 503)

CPLR § 510 Grounds for change of place of trial

Lopez-Viola v Duell, 2010 NY Slip Op 08539 (App. Div., 2nd 2010) 

The Supreme Court improvidently exercised its discretion in denying the defendants' motion to change the venue of the action from Kings County to Montgomery County, where the underlying motor vehicle accident occurred. The papers submitted by the appellants contained (1) the names, addresses, and occupations of two prospective witnesses, both of whom were officers with the Montgomery County Sheriff's Department, (2) the facts to which the witnesses would testify at trial, (3) statements demonstrating that the witnesses are willing to testify, and (4) a statement that the witnesses would be greatly inconvenienced if the venue of the action was not changed (see Walsh v Mystic Tank Lines Corp., 51 AD3d 908; Lafferty v Eklecco, LLC, 34 AD3d 754; Professional Veh. Leasing v Continuing Dev. Servs., 275 AD2d 313). Moreover, the convenience of local government officials is of paramount importance, because they should not be kept from their duties unnecessarily (see Lafferty v Eklecco, LLC, 34 AD3d at 754; Professional Veh. Leasing v Continuing Dev. Servs., 275 AD2d at 313). In contrast, the plaintiff's residence was the only apparent connection to Kings County and, in opposition to the motion, and the plaintiff failed to offer proof that there were any independent witnesses who would be inconvenienced if the action were transferred to Montgomery County.

Myoung Hee Yi v Meitetsu Express, 2010 NY Slip Op 08545 (App. Div., 2nd 2010)

For venue purposes, generally the sole residence of a foreign corporation is the county within the State in which its principal office is located, as designated in its application for authority to conduct business filed with the State of New York, or an amendment thereof (seeCPLR 503[c]; Business Corporation Law § 102[a][10]; Ashjian v Orion Power Holdings, Inc., 9 AD3d 440; Bailon v Avis Rent A Car,270 AD2d 439, 440; Collins v Trigen Energy Corp., 210 AD2d 283). Thus, here, where the general rule applies, New York County was the residence of the defendant Meitetsu Express, a California corporation authorized to do business in New York State, as that was the county designated in its application for authority. Accordingly, since none of the parties maintained a residence in Queens County, the plaintiff's designation of Queens County as the place of trial was improper, and the Supreme Court erred in denying the defendants' motion for a change of venue from Queens County to Nassau County, where the plaintiff and the individual defendant resided and the accident occurred. 

Moracho v Open Door Family Med. Ctr., Inc., 2010 NY Slip Op 0938 (App. Div., 1st 2010)

While there is no statutory time limit for a motion to change venue upon dismissal of a party whose residence provided the basis for venue, this Court has nonetheless required that such motions be made promptly (Clase v Sidoti, 20 AD3d 330 [2005]; Caplin v Ranhofer, 167 AD2d 155, 157-58 [1990]), that is, within a reasonable time after the movant obtains knowledge of the facts supporting the request (Herrera v R. Conley Inc., 52 AD3d 218 [2008]; Diaz v Clock Tower Assoc., 271 AD2d 290 [2000]). It also bears noting that a party need not wait for notice of entry of the order dismissing the improper party before it moves for a change of venue (see Emerick v Metropolitan Transp. Auth., 272 AD2d 150 [2000] [venue motion made simultaneous with dismissal motion]).

Here, defendants may have been aware as early as February 28, 2008, fifteen months before making their motion, that Primary Care Development Corporation, the sole defendant on whose residence venue in New York County was based, sought dismissal of the action against it ^[FN1]. Thereafter, Primary Care's September 2008 dismissal motion, made more than eight moths prior to the other defendants' venue applications, was unopposed. By order entered March 4, 2009, the court dismissed Primary Care from the case. In its order, the court explicitly stated that [*2]"none of the remaining parties has any connection to New York County and that [the] case is therefor amenable to a motion to change venue".

Notwithstanding this pronouncement, the remaining defendants waited an additional three months, during which time they appeared in New York County and set a trial date, without giving any indication of a venue problem. Two months after the trial date was set, the motion was made to change venue to Westchester. Given these circumstances, the grant of the motion was an improvident exercise of discretion and an implicit endorsement of careless motion practice, in disregard of the important principles of fair notice and judicial economy (see e.g. Herrera v R. Conley Inc., 52 AD3d 218 [2008]; Schwarz v Erpf Estate, 232 AD2d 316 [1996]; see also Litt v Balmer, 146 AD2d 559 [1989] [that trial date had been set was factor supporting finding that granting untimely venue change was abuse of discretion]).

There is a dissent.

 

CPLR § 511(b) Sufficiency of affidavit can't be weighed, but contents may be considered.

CPLR § 503 Venue based on residence

CPLR § 510 Grounds for change of place of trial

CPLR R. 511 Change of place of trial 

HVT, Inc. v Safeco Ins. Co. of Am., 2010 NY Slip Op 06571 (App. Div., 2nd 2010)

On this appeal, we must determine whether an affidavit served by a plaintiff in accordance with CPLR 511(b) may be scrutinized to ensure that it does, in fact, "show[ ] either that the county specified by the defendant is not proper or that the county designated by him is proper," or if the mere service of such an affidavit, irrespective of its content, satisfies the plaintiff's burden. We hold that, while the sufficiency of the factual averments set forth in such affidavits may not be weighed, the contents of the affidavits may nonetheless be considered to confirm that the averments therein do indeed "show[ ] either that the county specified by the defendant is not proper or that the county designated by [the plaintiff] is proper" as required by the statute (CPLR 511[b]).

It's a long decision, but it's worth reading.  I'll add more later.

 

I Loves Me Some Venue: CPLR § 510 R. 511

CPLR § 510 Grounds for change of place of trial

CPLR R. 511 Change of place of trial

Thomas v Guttikonda, 2009 NY Slip Op 09212 (App. Div., 2nd, 2009)

A demand to change venue based on the designation of an improper county (see CPLR 510[1]) "shall be served with the answer or before the answer is served" (CPLR 511[a]). Since the appellants failed to serve a timely demand for a change of venue and failed to make a motion within the 15-day period required under the statute (see CPLR 511[b]), they were not entitled to change the venue of this action as of right (see Baez v Marcus, 58 AD3d 585, 586; Jeffrey L. Rosenberg & Assoc., LLC v Lajaunie, 54 AD3d 813, 816; Obas v Grappell, 43 AD3d 431). Thus, their motion "became one addressed to the court's discretion" (Callanan Indus. v Sovereign Constr. Co., 44 AD2d 292, 295; see Baez v Marcus, 58 AD3d at 586; Jeffrey L. Rosenberg & Assoc., LLC v Lajaunie, 54 AD3d at 816; Obas v Grappell, 43 AD3d at 432). While the appellants contend that their noncompliance with the time limit should be overlooked since they moved promptly after discovering the purported true residence of the defendant Edwin M. Chang, there was no evidence of any willful omissions or misleading statements regarding Chang's residence by the plaintiff (see Joyner-Pack v Sykes, 30 AD3d 469; P.T.R. Co. v Teitelbaum, 2 AD3d 609, 610; Pittman v Maher, 202 AD2d 172, 175; cf. Horowicz v RSD Transp., 249 AD2d 511). Accordingly, the Supreme Court providently exercised its discretion in denying that branch of the appellants' motion which was to change the venue of this action pursuant to CPLR 510(1).

The Supreme Court providently exercised its discretion in denying that branch of the appellants' motion which was to change the venue of this action pursuant to CPLR 510(3) since the [*2]appellants failed to demonstrate that "the convenience of material witnesses and the ends of justice [would] be promoted by the change" (O'Brien v Vassar Bros. Hosp., 207 AD2d 169, 171, quoting CPLR 510[3]).

Notice that 510 is a section and 511 is rule.  What does it mean?  Not a damn thing.

CPLR § 510; CPLR R. 511; Forum Non Con; Venue Selection Clause

CPLR § 510 Grounds for change of place of trial

CPLR R. 511 Change of place of trial

CPLR R. 327 Inconvenient forum

Feather v Goglia, 2009 NY Slip Op 06661 (App. Div., 2nd, 2009)

The plaintiff placed the venue of this action in Queens County based upon the defendant's purported residence at the time of the commencement of the action (see CPLR 503[a]). The defendant moved to transfer the venue of the action to Nassau County, alleging that he did not reside in Queens County when the action was commenced. In support of the motion, the defendant submitted, inter alia, several mobile telephone bills and a motor vehicle lease bearing his name and a Nassau County address, and several electric bills addressed to a person named Catherine Goglia at the same Nassau County address. Thus, the defendant raised an issue of fact as to whether he resided in Nassau County when this action was commenced (see Johnson v Gioia, 38 AD3d 845; Rivera v Jensen, 307 AD2d 229, 230). Furthermore, the evidence submitted by the plaintiff in opposition, that the defendant's driver's license listed a Queens County address and that the vehicle registration listed a Nassau County address, only raised further issues of fact regarding residency (see Gonzalez v Weiss, 38 AD3d 492). Since this issue of fact could not properly have been resolved on the papers alone, the Supreme Court should have held a hearing on the issue of residency prior to determination of the motion (see Johnson v Gioia, 38 AD3d 845; Ramondi v Paramount Leasehold L.P., 37 AD3d 447).

The plaintiff's contention that the defendant is estopped from contesting venue because the defendant failed to comply with Vehicle and Traffic Law § 505(5) is without merit. The cases relied upon by the plaintiff are distinguishable, inasmuch as all of those cases address service of process (see e.g. Walker v Reyes, 59 AD3d 436, 437; Candela v Johnson, 48 AD3d 502, 503; [*2]Velasquez v Gallelli, 44 AD3d 934, 935). In contrast, the instant appeal involves a motion pursuant to CPLR 510 and 511 to transfer the venue of the action.

Goldberg v Goldberg, 2009 NY Slip Op 06800 (App. Div., 2nd, 2009)

The Supreme Court providently exercised its discretion in denying the appellant's motion pursuant to CPLR 510(3) to change the venue of this action from Kings County to Sullivan County based on the convenience of material witnesses (see Frankel v Stavsky, 40 AD3d 918, 919; O'Brien v Vassar Bros. Hosp., 207 AD2d 169, 172). In support of his motion, the appellant failed to sufficiently establish that the nonparty witnesses for whose convenience the change of venue was sought were willing to testify on his behalf and would be inconvenienced if venue were not changed (see Walsh v Mystic Tank Lines Corp., 51 AD3d 908, 909; Miszko v Leeds & Morelli, 269 AD2d 372; Cumberbatch v Gatehouse Motel & Rest., 265 AD2d 370; Rich v O'Connor, 212 AD2d 767). Moreover, the appellant failed to specify the nature and materiality of their anticipated testimony (see Shindler v Warf, 24 AD3d 429, 430; Giaimo v Hastings, 19 AD3d 365, 366; Weisemann v Davison, 162 AD2d 448).

Brown v Dawson, 2009 NY Slip Op 06734 (App. Div., 2nd, 2009)

Plaintiff properly placed venue in New York County based upon St. Vincent's Hospital and Medical Center's designation of New York County as its corporate residence on its certificate of incorporation (see CPLR 503[c]; Krochta v On Time Delivery Serv., Inc., 62 AD3d 579, 580 [2009]; Velasquez v Delaware Riv. Val. Lease Corp., 18 AD3d 359, 360 [2005]).

Nor does the record support a discretionary change of venue pursuant to CPLR 510(3), inasmuch as appellant failed to detail the identity and availability of proposed witnesses, the nature and materiality of the anticipated testimony and the manner in which they would be inconvenienced by the designated venue (see Parker v Ferraro, 61 AD3d 470 [2009]). 

Trump v Deutsche Bank Trust Co. Ams., 2009 NY Slip Op 06831 (App. Div., 2nd, 2009)

A contractual forum selection clause is prima facie valid and enforceable "unless it is shown by the challenging party to be unreasonable, unjust, in contravention of public policy, invalid due to fraud or overreaching, or it is shown that a trial in the selected forum would be so gravely difficult that the challenging party would, for all practical purposes, be deprived of its day in court" (Horton v Concerns of Police Survivors, Inc., 62 AD3d 836, lv denied NY3d, 2009 NY Slip Op 83212 [2009]; see Brook Group v JCH Syndicate 488, 87 NY2d 530, 534; Harry Casper, Inc., v Pines Assoc., L.P., 53 AD3d 764, 764-765; Best Cheese Corp. v All-Ways Forwarding Int'l., Inc., 24 AD3d 580, 581; Fleet Capital Leasing/Global Vendor Fin. v Angiuli Motors, Inc., 15 AD3d 535, 536; Premium Risk Group v Legion Ins. Co., 294 AD2d 345, 346). The plaintiffs failed to demonstrate that the subject clause contained in the Mezzanine Loan Agreement was invalid for any of these reasons. Nor is there any merit to their argument that the subject clause contained in the Mezzanine Loan Agreement was either permissive or insufficiently mandatory, or applied only to actions commenced by the lender (see e.g. Fear & Fear, Inc. v N.I.I. Brokerage, L.L.C., 50 AD3d 185). Further, and contrary to the plaintiffs' contention, the Mezzanine Loan Agreement forum selection clause is neither subordinate to, nor in conflict with, the forum selection clause in the construction loan agreement. We also reject the claim that the [*3]complaint in Action No. 1 does not seek relief from the Mezzanine defendants sufficient to trigger the forum selection clause in the Mezzanine Loan Agreement. Accordingly, the motion pursuant to CPLR 501 and 511 to change the venue of Action No. 1 from Queens County to New York County should have been granted, and the two actions should have been directed to be jointly tried in New York County.

Kargbo-Turay v Beam Bros. Trucking, Inc., 2009 NY Slip Op 06806 (App. Div., 2nd, 2009)

In a closely related action arising out of the same incident, we held that the motion for dismissal under the doctrine of forum non conveniens pursuant to CPLR 327(a) should have been granted, with certain conditions (see Turay v Beam Bros. Trucking Inc., 61 AD3d 964). In this case, there is nothing that supports a different result, and we find that "in the interest of substantial justice the action should be heard in another forum" (CPLR 327[a]).

To assure the availability of a forum for the action, our reversal and granting of the motion to dismiss is conditioned upon the appellant stipulating to waive jurisdictional and statute of limitations defenses as indicated (see CPLR 327[a]; see Turay v Beam Bros. Trucking Inc., 61 AD3d at 964; Cheggour v R'Kiki, 293 AD2d 507).

The bold is mine.

Failure to follow CPLR R. 511 makes venue discretionary

CPLR R. 511 Change of place of trial

CPLR § 501 Contractual provisions fixing venue

Tatko Stone Prods., Inc. v Davis-giovinzazzo Constr. Co., Inc., 2009 NY Slip Op 06210 (App. Div., 3rd, 2009)

We note first that, having raised the issue of improper venue as an affirmative defense in the answer, Great American did not waive the issue and could thereafter rely upon this defense in seeking dismissal of the action (see Lischinskaya v Carnival Corp., 56 AD3d 116, 118 [2008], lv denied ___ NY3d ___ [June 30, 2009]). In addition, as Great American did not follow the precise statutory procedures outlined under CPLR 511 (see CPLR 511 [a], [b]), the relief sought in its application became a discretionary matter (see Callanan Indus. v Sovereign Constr. Co., 44 AD2d 292, 295 [1974])^[FN1]. While Supreme Court may have erred in deciding the matter on subject matter jurisdiction grounds (see Matter of Lucchese v Rotella, 97 AD2d 645, 646 [1983], affd 60 NY2d 815 [1983]), we find that dismissal of the complaint was nevertheless warranted based on the venue provision of the bond (see CPLR 501; see also Dogmoch Intl. Corp. v Dresdner Bank AG, 304 AD2d 396, 397 [2003]; Premium Risk Group v Legion Ins. Co., 294 AD2d 345, 345-346 [2002]; B & H Interior Contr. v Yonkers Contr. Co., 234 AD2d 44, 45 [1996]; Alwinseal, Inc. v Travelers Indem. Co., 61 AD2d 803, 803-804 [1978]).

"It is well established that forum selection clauses are valid absent a showing that enforcement would be unreasonable and unjust or that the clause is invalid because of fraud or overreaching" (VOR Assoc. v Ontario Aircraft Sales & Leasing, 198 AD2d 638, 639 [1993] [citations omitted]; see Brooke Group v JCH Syndicate 488, 87 NY2d 530, 534 [1996]; Harry Casper, Inc. v Pines Assoc., L.P., 53 AD3d 764, 764-765 [2008]). Here, in seeking to enforce the bond as a third-party beneficiary of it, plaintiff, in absence of any evidence of unreasonableness, fraud or overreaching (compare 3H Enters. v Bennett, 276 AD2d 965, 966 [2000], lv denied 96 NY2d 710 [2001]), is bound by its forum selection provision (see B & H Interior Contr. v Yonkers Contr. Co., 234 AD2d at 45; Buhler v French Woods Festival of Performing Arts, 154 AD2d 303, 305 [1989]; Alwinseal, Inc. v Travelers Indem. Co., 61 AD2d at 803-804; Callanan Indus. v Sovereign Constr. Co., 44 AD2d at 294; Khan Enter. Constr., Inc. v P & K Contr., Inc., 13 Misc 3d 1207[A] [2006]; Flush Metal Partition Corp. v Nuovo Corp., 57 Misc 2d 900, 901 [1968]; Frontier Excavating v St. Paul Fire & Mar. Ins. Co., 50 Misc 2d 232, 233 [1966]; see generally Harry Casper, Inc. v Pines Assoc., L.P., 53 AD3d at 765). As plaintiff has advanced unpersuasive grounds upon which this Court might disregard the forum selection provision in the bond, we affirm dismissal of the action (see e.g. Dogmoch Intl. Corp. v Dresdner Bank AG, 304 AD2d at 397; Premium Risk Group v Legion Ins. Co., 294 AD2d at 346; British W. Indies Guar. Trust Co. v Banque Internationale A Luxembourg, 172 AD2d 234, 234 [1991]; Di Ruocco v Flamingo Beach Hotel & Casino, 163 AD2d 270, 271-272 [1990]).

Particularly unpersuasive is plaintiff's claim that dismissal is improper because Great American failed to demonstrate that the subject bond was "properly authenticated." While it would have been preferable for Great American to include the entire, properly-executed bond agreement in its moving papers, we are unpersuaded that this omission was fatal to the requested relief. First, there can be no real dispute that a valid and enforceable surety bond exists; indeed, plaintiff is relying upon it for relief in the first instance. More importantly, Great American submitted an affidavit of a senior claims analyst who averred that the subject bond contained a "venue provision" which requires that this action be venued in New Jersey. The analyst attached the relevant excerpt from a copy of the bond to his affidavit. This evidence was sufficient for Great American to establish the precise language of the subject forum selection clause.

A similar (sort of) issue popped up in the Second Department not too long ago.

The bold is mine.