Tashenberg v. Breslin

• Decision Date: 09 July 1982
• Citation: 89 A.D.2d 812,453 N.Y.S.2d 538
• Parties: Application of C. Bradley TASHENBERG, as a Director and Shareholder of Distributed Computer Planning Corporation, Respondent, v. Judson BRESLIN, Individually and as a Stockholder in Distributed Computer Planning Corporation, Appellant.
• Court: New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division

Page 538

453 N.Y.S.2d 538

89 A.D.2d 812

Application of C. Bradley TASHENBERG, as a Director and

Shareholder of Distributed Computer Planning

Corporation, Respondent, v. Judson BRESLIN, Individually and as a Stockholder in

Distributed Computer Planning Corporation, Appellant.

Supreme Court, Appellate Division,

Fourth Department.

July 9, 1982.

Merkel & Mittleman by Jeanne Colombo, Rochester, for appellant.

Markel & Marshall by Howard Lipman, Buffalo, for respondents.

Before DILLON, P. J., and HANCOCK, DENMAN, BOOMER and MOULE, JJ.

MEMORANDUM:

Special Term properly denied respondent's motion for a change of venue. If this were simply a special proceeding for a judicial dissolution, venue would lie in the judicial district in which the office of the corporation is located, that location being the one designated in the certificate of incorporation (Business Corporation Law, §§ 102, subd. par. 10; 1112; Hoffman v. Oxford Developments, 9 A.D.2d 937, 195 N.Y.S.2d 484). Here, however, inasmuch as the petitioner essentially seeks various other types of relief on his own behalf as a stockholder, director and officer, his county of residence is proper for purposes of venue (CPLR 503, subd. Feldmeier v. Webster, 208 Misc. 996, 145 N.Y.S.2d 365, affd. 1 A.D.2d 938, 150 N.Y.S.2d 581; Blum v. Gleitsman, 25 Misc.2d 740, 203 N.Y.S.2d 38). Accordingly, since this matter involves a joinder of claims with conflicting venue provisions, Special Term exercised its discretion and designated petitioner's county of residence as the place of trial (CPLR 502).

Order unanimously affirmed with costs.