Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Second Department, New York.
Ruth Jacobs SOWELL, appellant, v. Israel GANSBURG, respondent.
Decided: October 17, 2018
RUTH C. BALKIN, J.P., JOHN M. LEVENTHAL, ROBERT J. MILLER, JOSEPH J. MALTESE, JJ.
Bruce S. Reznick, P.C. (Pollack, Pollack, Isaac & DeCicco, LLP, New York, N.Y. [Brian J. Isaac], of counsel), for appellant. James G. Bilello (Russo & Tambasco, Melville, N.Y. [Susan J. Mitola], of counsel), for respondent.
DECISION & ORDER
In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, the plaintiff appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Carolyn E. Wade, J.), dated April 7, 2017. The order granted the defendant's motion to change the venue of the action from Kings County to New York County.
ORDERED that the order is affirmed, with costs.
On July 22, 2016, the plaintiff commenced this personal injury action in the Supreme Court, Kings County. The defendant's residence was the basis for placing venue in Kings County (see CPLR 503[a] ). The defendant moved pursuant to CPLR 510(2) and 511(a) to change the venue of the action from Kings County to New York County on the ground that an impartial trial could not be obtained in Kings County. The Supreme Court granted the defendant's motion. The plaintiff appeals.
To obtain a change of venue pursuant to CPLR 510(2), a movant is required to produce admissible factual evidence demonstrating a strong possibility that an impartial trial cannot be obtained in the county where venue was properly placed (see Rutherford v. Patel, 129 A.D.3d 933, 933–934, 10 N.Y.S.3d 449; Pruitt v. Patsalos, 96 A.D.3d 924, 946 N.Y.S.2d 486; Matter of Michiel, 48 A.D.3d 687, 687, 850 N.Y.S.2d 916). A motion to change venue pursuant to CPLR 510(2) is addressed to the sound discretion of the trial court (see Milazzo v. Long Is. Light. Co., 106 A.D.2d 495, 496, 483 N.Y.S.2d 33), and its determination will not be disturbed absent an improvident exercise of discretion (see Lisa v. Parikh, 131 A.D.3d 1135, 1136, 16 N.Y.S.3d 752).
Under the particular circumstances of this case, the Supreme Court providently exercised its discretion in granting the defendant's motion pursuant to CPLR 510(2) to change the venue of this action from Kings County to New York County in order to avoid any appearance of impropriety (see Lisa v. Parikh, 131 A.D.3d at 1136, 16 N.Y.S.3d 752; Rutherford v. Patel, 129 A.D.3d at 934, 10 N.Y.S.3d 449; Pruitt v. Patsalos, 96 A.D.3d 924, 946 N.Y.S.2d 486).
BALKIN, J.P., LEVENTHAL, MILLER and MALTESE, JJ., concur.
Was this helpful?
Response sent, thank you
Welcome to FindLaw's Cases & Codes
A free source of state and federal court opinions, state laws, and the United States Code. For more information about the legal concepts addressed by these cases and statutes visit FindLaw's Learn About the Law.