Skip to main content
Find a Lawyer

304822 10 v. << (2015)

Supreme Court, Appellate Division, First Department.

N Julie Jackson, Plaintiff–Respondent, 304822/10 v.

City of New York, et al., Defendants, Liberty Lines Transit, Inc., et al., Defendants–Appellants.  Boubacar Keita, Plaintiff–Respondent, v.

Westchester County Department of Transportation, et al., Defendants–Appellants.—–—–—Stavros Sola, etc., Plaintiff–Respondent, v. The City of New York, et al.  Defendants.  The County of Westchester, et al., Defendants–Appellants.

1485 5

Decided: April 16, 2015

Acosta, J.P., Saxe, Moskowitz, Richter, Feinman, JJ.

Lifflander & Reich LLP, New York (Kent B. Dolan of counsel), for appellants.

Rosenberg, Minc, Falkoff & Wolff, LLP, New York (Steven C. Falkoff of counsel), for Julie Jackson, respondent.

Leav & Steinberg, LLP, New York (Kathleen E. Beatty of counsel), for Stavros Sola, respondent.

_

Order, Supreme Court, Bronx County (Larry S. Schachner, J.), entered August 7, 2014, which denied defendants Liberty Lines Transit Inc., Ciro Matarazzo, Westchester County Department of Transportation, and the County of Westchester's motion to change venue, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

Defendants' motion to change venue from Bronx County to Westchester County was untimely, and thus properly denied.   Where a demand to change venue claiming the designation of an improper county is opposed by a plaintiff, any subsequent motion to transfer venue must be made within 15 days after service of the demand, in the county designated by plaintiff (CPLR 511[b] ).  Here, after defendants' demand was opposed by two of the three plaintiffs in these joined actions, defendants improperly noticed their motion in Westchester County.   After that motion was denied—approximately three months after service of the demand—defendants again moved to change venue, this time in Bronx County.   However, that motion, “while made in the proper county ․ was brought more than 15 days after defendants filed their demand and the request for relief was thus untimely” (Singh v. Becher, 249 A.D.2d 154, 154 [1st Dept 1998] ).

Our ruling on the timeliness of defendants' motion to transfer venue obviates the need to determine whether Supreme Court providently exercised its discretion by denying the motion on its merits.   Were we to reach the issue, we would conclude that the court's exercise of discretion was provident (accord Forteau v. County of Westchester, 196 A.D.2d 440 [1st Dept 1993] ).

_

CLERK

Was this helpful?

Thank you for your feedback!

FindLaw Marketing Authority Suite

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

304822 10 v. << (2015)

Docket No: 1485 5

Decided: April 16, 2015

Court: Supreme Court, Appellate Division, First Department.

Need to Find an Attorney?

Search our directory by legal issue

Enter information in one or both fields (Required)

For Legal Professionals

Get a profile on the #1 online legal directory

Harness the power of our directory with your own profile. Select the button below to sign up.

Sign Up

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.

Go to Learn About The Law

Need to Find an Attorney?

Search our directory by legal issue

Enter information in one or both fields (Required)

Copied to clipboard