Learn About the Law
Get help with your legal needs
FindLaw’s Learn About the Law features thousands of informational articles to help you understand your options. And if you’re ready to hire an attorney, find one in your area who can help.
Orlando HERNANDEZ, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Vincenzo SEMINATORE, et al., Defendants-Respondents.
Order, Supreme Court, Bronx County (Betty Owen Stinson, J.), entered January 8, 2007, which, in an action for personal injuries sustained in an automobile accident, granted defendants' motion to change venue from Bronx County to Nassau County, unanimously affirmed, without costs.
The police accident report, which shows an Ulster County residence for plaintiff, and admittedly reflects the driver's license that plaintiff showed to Nassau County police at the scene of the accident, sufficed to sustain defendants' initial burden on the motion to show that the Bronx County venue chosen by plaintiff is improper (CPLR 503[a], 510[1]; see Key-Kanuteh v. Kenia, 288 A.D.2d 16, 732 N.Y.S.2d 9 [1st Dept.2001]; Ruiz v. Lazala, 26 A.D.3d 366, 367, 811 N.Y.S.2d 410 [2d Dept.2006] ). Plaintiff's assertion that he used his brother's Kingston address on his driver's license because the itinerant nature of his employment as a tour bus driver kept him moving around, and he wanted a steady address to ensure uninterrupted receipt of mail, fails to raise an issue of fact, at least in the absence of any probative documentary evidence showing a Bronx residence when the action was commenced (see Furlow v. Braeubrun, 259 A.D.2d 417, 687 N.Y.S.2d 144 [1st Dept.1999] ). The copy of the first page of a standard form apartment lease, listing a Bronx County address for a one-year term commencing some seven months before commencement of the action, is unsigned. The other documentary materials submitted by plaintiff-a commercial driver's license, income tax returns, and E-Z Pass statements-purporting to show a Bronx residence prior to that shown in the lease, all predate commencement of the action by significant periods of time. Given that plaintiff does not contest receipt of defendants' CPLR 511(b) demand, or argue that defendants did not follow proper procedure as affirmed by their attorney, it does not avail plaintiff that defendants' CPLR 511(b) demand was not annexed to their motion. We have considered plaintiff's other arguments and find them unavailing.
Thank you for your feedback!
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.
Decided: February 07, 2008
Court: Supreme Court, Appellate Division, First Department, New York.
Search our directory by legal issue
Enter information in one or both fields (Required)
Harness the power of our directory with your own profile. Select the button below to sign up.
Learn more about FindLaw’s newsletters, including our terms of use and privacy policy.
Get help with your legal needs
FindLaw’s Learn About the Law features thousands of informational articles to help you understand your options. And if you’re ready to hire an attorney, find one in your area who can help.
Search our directory by legal issue
Enter information in one or both fields (Required)