Narrative Opinion Summary
Defendants appealed an order from the Supreme Court, Queens County, which denied their motion to transfer venue from Queens County to Nassau County in a personal injury case. The appellate court affirmed the lower court's decision, with costs awarded. The defendants' request to change venue based on improper designation was deemed untimely, as they failed to serve a demand for the venue change with or before their answer, violating CPLR 511(a). Although courts can occasionally grant untimely venue change motions, the defendants did not provide sufficient justification for such discretion in this case. Additionally, their argument for a venue change based on the convenience of material witnesses was also rejected, as their supporting submissions were inadequate. The panel included Justices Miller, Ritter, Sullivan, Friedmann, and Krausman, all concurring with the decision.
Legal Issues Addressed
Judicial Discretion in Granting Untimely Venue Change Motionssubscribe to see similar legal issues
Application: The court has the discretion to grant untimely venue change motions, but in this case, the defendants did not provide sufficient justification to warrant such discretion.
Reasoning: Although courts can occasionally grant untimely venue change motions, the defendants did not provide sufficient justification for such discretion in this case.
Timeliness of Venue Change Request under CPLR 511(a)subscribe to see similar legal issues
Application: The defendants' motion to transfer venue was denied due to their failure to serve a demand for venue change with or before their answer, rendering the request untimely.
Reasoning: The defendants' request to change venue based on improper designation was deemed untimely, as they failed to serve a demand for the venue change with or before their answer, violating CPLR 511(a).
Venue Change Based on Convenience of Material Witnessessubscribe to see similar legal issues
Application: The defendants' argument for a venue change due to the convenience of material witnesses was rejected because their supporting submissions were inadequate.
Reasoning: Additionally, their argument for a venue change based on the convenience of material witnesses was also rejected, as their supporting submissions were inadequate.