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.
N Michelle Scuorzo, E Plaintiff–Respondent, v. Luqman Safdar, et al. Defendants, Big Apple Car, Inc., Defendant–Appellant.
_
Order, Supreme Court, Bronx County (Lizbeth Gonzalez, J.), entered July 10, 2014, which, inter alia, denied the motion of defendant Big Apple Car, Inc. (Big Apple) to change venue from Bronx County to Kings County, unanimously reversed, on the law, without costs, and the motion granted.
Plaintiff, a resident of New Jersey, alleges that she was struck by a taxi owned by Big Apple and/or defendant Ahmad and driven by defendant Safdar, when the taxi swerved to avoid an ambulance owned by either defendant Transcare Ambulance Corp. or Citywide Mobile Response Corp., which had its principal office in Bronx County. After plaintiff discontinued her action against Citywide, which had no connection to the accident, Big Apple promptly moved to change venue to Kings County, where plaintiff had previously commenced an action against the other defendants (see Scuorzo v. Safdar, 115 AD3d 843 [2d Dept 2014] ).
The motion court recognized that “[w]here venue is initially placed on the basis of the principal place of business [or residence] of an improper party, a motion to change venue should be granted after the action is dismissed as against the improper party” (Halina Yin Fong Chow v. Long Is. R.R., 202 A.D.2d 154, 155 [1st Dept 1994] ), but denied the motion because it found that Big Apple had failed to demonstrate that Kings County was a proper venue. However, the record contains the pleadings, which establish that defendant Ahmad is a resident of Kings County. Based on the change in circumstances resulting from dismissal of the only party with any connection with Bronx County, Big Apple'smotion for a change of venue should have been granted (see e.g. Clase v. Sidoti, 20 AD3d 330 [1st Dept 2005] ).
_
CLERK
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.
Docket No: 1640 5
Decided: December 15, 2015
Court: Supreme Court, Appellate Division, First Department.
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)