Dlugaski v. Port Auth. of N.Y. & N.J.
| Decision Date | 30 June 2010 |
| Docket Number | No. 307484/09.,307484/09. |
| Citation | 957 N.Y.S.2d 635,28 Misc.3d 1203,2010 N.Y. Slip Op. 51133 |
| Parties | Kenneth DLUGASKI, Plaintiff, v. The PORT AUTHORITY OF NEW YORK AND NEW JERSEY, 1 World Trade Center LLC and Tishman Construction Corporation of New York, Defendants. |
| Court | New York Supreme Court |
OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE
Segal McCambridge, Singer & Mahoney, Ltd., by Simon Lee, New York, Attorney for Defendant The Port Authority of New York and New Jersey, 1 World Trade Center LLC, Tishman Construction Corporation of New York.
Sacks and Sacks LLP, by Devon Reiff, Esq., Attorney for Plaintiff Kenneth Dlugaski.
KENNETH L. THOMPSON, J., JR.
Defendants' THE PORT AUTHORITY OF NEW YORK AND NEW JERSEY, 1 WORLD TRADE CENTER LLC and TISHMAN CONSTRUCTION CORPORATION OF NEW YORK (“The Port Authority”) motion for an Order pursuant to CPLR § 510(3) changing the venue of this action from Bronx County to New York County is denied.
Plaintiff claims that he sustained injuries “at the premises under construction at the Freedom Towers located at the World Trade Center, Borough of Manhattan, City and State of New York,” ( Ver. Bill. Part. at ¶ 6), when “he was struck by a bundle of rebar that was improperly hoisted and improperly secured” ( id. at ¶ 5). Plaintiff was a Richmond County resident when this action was commenced, however, he placed venue in the Bronx based on the Port Authority's residence. ( NOC at ¶ 1; see also S & C.) The Port Authority is now seeking to change the venue of this action “upon the grounds that the ends of justice will be promoted by having the place of trial in New York County.” . Plaintiff opposes the motion on the grounds that McKinney's Unconsolidated Laws of New York § 7106 entitles him to maintain venue here in Bronx County.
The Port Authority is adamant that its “motion is not based on the convenience of material witness,' but upon a lack of nexus with the Bronx.” ( Def. Reply at ¶ 20.) Therefore, it supposes, it is not required to “ma[k]e a showing of inconvenience of witnesses, including but not limited to the identity of witnesses, the materiality of anticipated testimony, and how they would be inconvenienced.” ( Id. at ¶ 19.) Rather, the Port Authority's stance that the “ends of justice would be promoted” by a change to New York County relies on two basic arguments. This cause of action should be tried in New York County where it arose since it is a transitory action. ( Def. Aff. Supp. at ¶ 15.) And Bronx County “bears absolutely no relationship” to the alleged accident since none of the parties resided there when the action was commenced. ( Id. at ¶ 16.) The Port Authority alludes to four specific facts in support of its arguments, that: 1) Plaintiff is a Richmond County resident; 2) the cause of action arose in New York County; 3) none of the Defendants maintain a principal place of business in the Bronx; and 3) none of Plaintiff's medical providers are located in the Bronx ( id. at ¶¶ 13 & 24).
The Court finds that both of Defendants' contentions are insufficient to justify a discretionary change of venue based on the facts as provided. First, the Port Authority may not rely on the “ends of justice” component of § 510(3), without addressing the “convenience of material witnesses.” Second, the Port Authority—for all intents and purposes—is a resident of Bronx County as per McKinney's Unconsolidated Laws of New York § 7106.
“Except where otherwise prescribed by law, the place of trial shall be in the county in which one of the parties resided when it was commenced; or, if none of the parties then resided in the state, in any county designated by the plaintiff.” CPLR § 503(a). CPLR § 505. In actions regarding “consent to liability for tortious acts,” McKinney's Uncons Laws of N.Y. § 7106. “The court, upon motion, may change the place of trial of an action where: ... the convenience of material witnesses and the ends of justice will be promoted by the change.” CPLR § 510(3).
Plaintiff is entitled to venue this action in Bronx County based on McKinney's Uncons Laws of N.Y. § 7106, which overrides CPLR § 505 in this instance. See Bollman v. Port Auth., 17 A.D.3d 182–83, 796 N.Y.S.2d 334 (). And since Defendants are seeking discretionary relief under CPLR § 510(3), the fifteen-day time limit enunciated in CPLR 511 is inapplicable. See Tesfaye v. Swett, 227 A.D.2d 150, 641 N.Y.S.2d 674.
The issue that arises is whether the “ends of justice” will be promoted by a move to New York County based on the facts posited by Defendants. Although this term lacks an “ordinary and unambiguous meaning,” Butcher's Union Local No. 498 v. SDC Invest., Inc., 788 F.2d 535, 538–39, and “cannot be finely particularized,” Sanders v. U.S., 373 U.S. 1, 17, 83 S.Ct. 1068, 10 L.Ed.2d 148, the word “justice” means “[t]he fair and proper administration of laws,” Black's Law Dictionary (7th ed 1999), at 869. Next, “judicial discretion,” which the Port Authority is asking the Court to exercise in consideration of its application, is “[t]he exercise of judgment by a judge or court based on what is fair under the circumstances and guided by the rules and principles of law.” Black's Law Dictionary (7th ed.1999), at 479. Conversely, “[d]iscretion, in this sense, is abused when the judicial action is arbitrary, fanciful or unreasonable, which is another way of saying that discretion is abused only where no reasonable man would take the view adopted by the court.” People v. S., 87 Misc.2d 951, 955, 386 N.Y.S.2d 536.
Finally, there is a constitutional obligation that courts determine the expressed will of the Legislature, and such legislative intent must be first sought in the language of the statute under consideration. Where the terms of the statute are plain and unambiguous, the statute must be construed in accordance with its expressed terms, and should be construed so as to effectuate the plain meaning of the words used. In construing a given statutory enactment, a court should not by construction extend such statute beyond its express terms or the reasonable implications of its language.
Drelich v. Kenlyn Homes, Inc., 86 A.D.2d 648, 649, 446 N.Y.S.2d 408.
The Court realizes that the venue determination in this action requires a balancing of interests—Plaintiff's entitlement to have this action heard in Bronx County versus Defendants' right to have it moved to New York County—and that a just outcome relies on a fair and reasonable interpretation of applicable legal statutes, principles and precedents. The Court finds that based on its analysis of the above, the Port Authority has failed to show that it would be unfair or inconvenient to maintain the venue of this action in the Bronx. Furthermore, the Court finds that absent this showing, Plaintiff is entitled to maintain venue of this action in the Bronx.
convenience of material witnesses
As stated earlier, § 510(3) mandates that change of venue is warranted where “the convenience of material witnesses and the ends of justice will be promoted by the change.” (emphasis added). Given that this Court's discretion must be guided by the plain meaning of the statute at issue, it cannot ignore the conjunctive contained therein. Simply stated, the Court cannot examine what would promote the ends of justice without also considering the convenience of material witnesses in its equation. Indeed, although “in general, the venue of a transitory action lies in the county where the cause of action arose, that rule is predicated upon the concept of convenience for witnesses who are to be present at trial.” Iassinski v. Vassiliev, 220 A.D.2d 372–73, 633 N.Y.S.2d 281;see also Leopold v. Goldstein, 283 A.D.2d 319, 320, 726 N.Y.S.2d 15;Chimarios v. Duhl, 152 A.D.2d 508, 509, 543 N.Y.S.2d 681;Boriskin v. Long Island Jewish–Hillside Medical Ctr., South Shore Div., 85 A.D.2d 523, 444 N.Y.S.2d 618.
The Court finds that the underlying basis of the statute is that a fair trial is contingent on each party being able to present witnesses in support of its case. And by placing venue in a county that would inconvenience such witnesses would not promote the “fair and proper administration of laws.” For example, the court in Henry v. Cent. Hudson Gas & Elec. Corp., 57 A.D.3d 452, 872 N.Y.S.2d 4, changed venue because the police officers and EMT workers who responded to the scene and prepared reports detailing their response averred that they were willing to testify but would be inconvenienced “by having to take a day off of work from their public service jobs to travel to Bronx County to testify.” The court in Austin v. DaimlerChrysler Corp., 294 A.D.2d 182, 741 N.Y.S.2d 685, changed venue “to Suffolk County, where the liability witnesses either work or live, many of whom, namely, police, fire and ambulance personnel who...
To continue reading
Request your trial