Jacqueline Carter, Plaintiff, v. AMAZON COM LLC AMAZON LOGISTICS INC ALEXIS VERGARA (2026)

The following papers efiled on NYSCEF were used on these motions:

By defendant Alexis Vergara: Doc Nos. 13-19, 31, 34.

By plaintiff: Doc Nos. 22-30, 32.

Upon the foregoing papers, having heard oral argument, and due deliberation having been had, the within motions are determined as follows.

Background

Motion Sequence No. 1 is Defendant Vergara's motion to change the venue from Kings County to Richmond County. Motion Sequence No. 2 is Plaintiff's cross-motion seeking to retain Kings County as the venue.

At the time of the alleged accident, Plaintiff Jacqueline Carter was a resident of Lanham, Maryland, and Defendant Alexis Vergara was a resident of Staten Island, Richmond County, New York. Defendants Amazon.com, Inc., Amazon.com, LLC, and Amazon Logistics, Inc. (collectively "Defendant Amazon") were and remain domestic business corporations duly authorized to conduct business in the State of New York. On December 11, 2025, at approximately 3:30 p.m., Defendant Vergara, allegedly acting within the scope of her employment with Defendant Amazon, was operating a motor vehicle owned by Defendant Amazon at the intersection of Ralph Avenue and latlands Avenue in Kings County, New York. Plaintiff was operating another motor vehicle at the same time and location when the two vehicles came into contact. Plaintiff alleged that she sustained injuries as a result of the collision.

Defendant Vergara's Contentions

Defendant Vergara argued in support of the motion to change venue to Richmond County. Defendant Vergara initially requested to change venue on the grounds that Richmond County was the proper venue and Kings County was an improper venue based on the fact that no party in this action is or was a resident of Kings County, while Defendant Vergara is and was a resident of Richmond County. However, during oral argument, Defendant Vergara conceded that Kings County was a proper venue and relied solely upon her secondary request for a discretionary change of venue under CPLR 510 (3). Defendant Vergara contended that changing the venue to Richmond County would promote justice because it would be more convenient for witnesses, since Defendant Vergara resides in Richmond County.

Plaintiff's Contentions

Plaintiff argued in opposition to the motion to change venue to Richmond County, and simultaneously in support of Plaintiff's cross-motion to retain Kings County as the venue. Plaintiff disputed Defendant Vergara's initial claim that Kings County was in improper venue. Once that issue was resolved, Plaintiff also opposed Defendant Vergara's request for a discretionary change of venue by asserting that Defendant Vergara did not satisfy the requirements of CPLR 510 (3). Specifically, Defendant Vergara did not identify material witnesses and/or anticipated testimony. Furthermore, Plaintiff countered that Richmond County would not be more convenient for all witnesses; Kings County would be more convenient for Plaintiff's treating physicians because Plaintiff received medical treatment in Kings County.

In support of Plaintiff's cross-motion to retain Kings County as the venue, Plaintiff argued there is a clear nexus between this action and Kings County because the alleged accident occurred in Kings County and Plaintiff's medical treatment occurred in Kings County.

Plaintiff further asserted that Defendant Vergara's motion for change of venue contained fatal procedural deficiencies. Defendant Vergara's notice of motion (NYSCEF Doc No. 13) omitted the subdivisions of CPLR 510 and 511 under which the relief was sought, in violation of CPLR 2214 (a), which requires that the grounds for requested motion relief be specified.

. Defendant Vergara also failed to comply with CPLR 2106's mandatory language for the affirmation by an attorney (NYSCEF Doc No. 14, Affirmation in Support of Motion, at 1) by using different phrasing. CPLR 2106 requires that affirmations acknowledge that the penalties for perjury include a fine or imprisonment. Lastly, Defendant's wherefore clause (id. at 6) requested to transfer venue from Bronx County to Rockland County counties unrelated to this action.

Defendant Vergara's Reply Contentions

Defendant Vergara claimed in reply that the change of venue would not prejudice Plaintiff or Defendant Amazon because neither has residential ties to Kings County, the case is still in the early stages, and it is only a short distance from Kings County to Staten Island. Additionally, Defendant Vergara's reason for failing to specify potential witnesses who would be inconvenienced by holding the trial in Kings County was that witnesses have not yet been selected, and discovery has not yet been conducted. Finally, Plaintiff did not offer proof that Plaintiff's medical treatment occurred in Kings County.

Discussion

Pursuant to CPLR 510 (3), to succeed on a motion for a discretionary change of venue, the defendant has the burden to submit evidence of:

"(1) the names, addresses, and occupations of the prospective witnesses, "(2) the facts to which the witnesses will testify at trial, so that the court may assess whether the proposed evidence is necessary and material, (3) a statement that the witnesses are willing to testify, and (4) a statement that the witnesses would be greatly inconvenienced if the venue of the action was not changed (see Ambroise v United Parcel Serv. of Am., Inc., 143 AD3d at 928; M.I. v Trinity—Pawling Sch., 125 AD3d 615, 615 [2015])" (Gorodetsky v Bridgewater Wholesalers, Inc., 161 AD3d 722, 723 [2d Dept 2018]; see Saint-Louis v Esposito, 171 AD3d 824 [2d Dept 2019]).

Defendant Vergara did not submit evidence to meet any the above requirements. Case law is well settled that failure to submit such evidence is grounds for denial. Defendant Vergara's reply argument that Plaintiff did not submit evidence that Plaintiff's treatment occurred in Kings County is moot, because the burden lies with Defendant Vergara. Moreover, Defendant Vergara's argument that changing venues would not prejudice Plaintiff because Staten Island is very close to Kings County undermines the very premise of Defendant Vergara's request, because by that logic it would not inconvenience Staten Island witnesses to travel to Kings County either.

Additionally, the Court takes judicial notice that transportation between Kings County and Richmond County is easily effectuated via the Verazzanno-Narrows Bridge.¹ Hence, the commute from Richmond County to Kings County for trial would not inconvenience witnesses to the degree of impeding justice.

Despite Defendant Vergara's alleged procedural defects, the relief which Defendant Vergara sought in Motion Sequence No. 1 was clear to Plaintiff and the Court. The other procedural defects mentioned by Plaintiff are largely trivial. Regardless, even considering only the merits of Defendant Vergara's motion, it should be denied. Therefore, it is not necessary to consider the alleged procedural defects.

Conclusion

It is hereby ORDERED, that Defendant Vergara's Motion Sequence No. 1 is denied, and venue for the instant action shall not be changed to Richmond County.

It is hereby ORDERED, that Plaintiff's Motion Sequence No. 2, a cross-motion to retain Kings County as venue for the instant action, is granted.

FOOTNOTES

1.   In the 1960s, a typo omitted one 'z' in the spelling of the Verrazzano-Narrows bridge, causing it to be misspelled until 2018 when Gov. Andrew Cuomo signed a bill to correct the spelling by adding a second "z." A CBS news article covering the typo correction can be found at this link: https://www.cbsnews.com/newyork/news/verrazzano-bridge-spelling-fixed/.

Aaron D. Maslow, J.