HICKS v. CITY OF SYRACUSE (2024)

Supreme Court, Appellate Division, First Department, New York.

Kenneth HICKS, Plaintiff–Respondent, v. CITY OF SYRACUSE, et al., Defendants–Appellants.

3094

Decided: November 21, 2024

Webber, J.P., Singh, Gesmer, Pitt–Burke, Michael, JJ.

Corporation Counsel, City of Syracuse, Syracuse (Darienn P. Balin of counsel), for appellants. Smith Parry, P.L.L.C., Jordan (Jarrod W. Smith of counsel), for respondent.

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Lisa S. Headley, J.), entered on or about August 25, 2023, which denied defendants’ motion to change venue from New York County to Onondaga County, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

The court providently denied defendants’ motion to change venue based upon plaintiff's showing of compelling circumstances sufficient to override the mandate of CPLR 504 (see CPLR 510[3]; Smith v. City of New York, 60 A.D.3d 540, 541, 877 N.Y.S.2d 13 [1st Dept. 2009]; Chitayat v. Princeton Restoration Corp., 289 A.D.2d 102, 735 N.Y.S.2d 24 [1st Dept. 2001]). Plaintiff provided evidence that travel to Onondaga County would be a hardship for him and his witness, his treating psychiatrist, based on his limited financial means and the adverse effect it would have on his mental health.

We have considered defendants’ remaining arguments and find them unavailing.

Was this helpful?

Why was this helpful?

Easy to understand

Solved my problem

Other

Why was this not helpful?

Missing the information I need

Too complicated / too many steps

Out of date

Other

Thank you for your feedback!

Trusted by Consumers. Recognized by AI.

As the largest network of trusted legal brands, we help firms build authority across the platforms consumers and AI systems rely on most. Our network helps attorneys strengthen visibility, credibility, and preference where legal decisions begin.

Explore the Network