Leopold v. Goldstein
| Decision Date | 24 May 2001 |
| Citation | 726 N.Y.S.2d 15,283 A.D.2d 319 |
| Parties | LOUIS LEOPOLD, Appellant,<BR>v.<BR>RUTH GOLDSTEIN, Also Known as RUTH LEOPOLD, Respondent. |
| Court | New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division |
Concur — Williams, J. P., Tom, Mazzarelli, Lerner and Rubin, JJ.
This action for an accounting, replevin and conversion was commenced in New York County by plaintiff's attorney-in-fact, Howard Gross. The complaint alleges that defendant, plaintiff's former wife, is in possession of his personal belongings and financial records, which she acquired subsequent to the divorce. Plaintiff, who is both mentally and physically incapacitated, is a full-time resident of the Dewitt Rehabilitation and Nursing Center in Manhattan, to which he moved one month prior to commencement of this action. According to defendant's brief, he was previously a resident of the Gerwin Jewish Geriatric Center in Suffolk County. Plaintiff's attorney-in-fact is a member of Weinberg, Kaley, Gross & Pergament, a Nassau County law firm.
Defendant, a resident of Suffolk County, served a timely demand for a change of venue with her answer on October 25, 2000, serving notice of the subject motion 19 days later. Defendant's affidavit in support of the motion states that for the last 50 years she has been a continuous resident of Suffolk County, where the divorce action was filed and the subject property is located. She notes that plaintiff is too incapacitated to ever appear in court or assist in the litigation and that his attorneys are situated in the contiguous County of Nassau.
Supreme Court improvidently exercised its discretion in granting the motion. Venue was properly placed in New York County, where plaintiff resided at the time the action was commenced (CPLR 503 [a]; Roman v Brereton, 182 AD2d 556, 557), and the improper placement of venue is not implicated (CPLR 511 [a]; see, Peretzman v Elias, 221 AD2d 192). Thus, it was incumbent upon movant to demonstrate that "the convenience of material witnesses and the ends of justice will be promoted by the change" (CPLR 510 [3]). "[A] motion pursuant to CPLR 510 (3) is addressed to the sound discretion of the court," and defendant's submissions must be "legally [s]ufficient to support an exercise of that discretion" (Pittman v Maher, 202 AD2d 172, 176, citing Weisemann v Davison, 162 AD2d 448).
In granting the change of venue on the ground that the original divorce was granted in Suffolk County, Supreme Court seems to have regarded the matter as a transitory action. However, the misappropriation of...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Lividini v. Goldstein
...in New York County (see Job v. Subaru Leasing Corp. , 30 A.D.3d 159, 817 N.Y.S.2d 9 [1st Dept. 2006] ; Leopold v. Goldstein , 283 A.D.2d 319, 320, 726 N.Y.S.2d 15 [1st Dept. 2001] ). Defendants only provided a mere general statement that a witness would be inconvenienced because the medical......
-
Dlugaski v. Port Auth. of N.Y. & N.J.
...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......
-
Roopnarine v. Zelena, 2004 NY Slip Op 50725(U) (NY 6/22/2004)
...Lighting Co., 138 A.D.2d 316, 318 (1st Dept 1988). Deciding upon such a motion is at the discretion of the court. Leopold v. Goldstein, 283 A.D.2d 319, 320 (1st Dept 2001). In order for the court to exercise such discretion in granting the motion for the convenience of witnesses, the moving......
-
Carestream Health, Inc. v. Harris Beach PLLC
...analysis under CPLR 510(3). Relief under this aspect of the venue rules is also discretionary with the Court. Leopold v. Goldstein, 283 A.D.2d 319 (1st Dep't 2001). This Court finds little guidance in how the “interests of justice” standard under CPLR 510(3) differs from the “impartial tria......