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.
Ruth Jacobs SOWELL, appellant, v. Israel GANSBURG, 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.
Response sent, thank you
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.
Docket No: 2017–04606
Decided: October 17, 2018
Court: Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Second 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.
FindLaw for Legal Professionals
Learn more about FindLaw’s newsletters, including our terms of use and privacy policy. This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
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)