Voorhees v. Babcock & Wilcox Corp.
| Decision Date | 22 May 1989 |
| Citation | 541 N.Y.S.2d 550,150 A.D.2d 677 |
| Parties | Thelma VOORHEES, etc., Respondent, v. BABCOCK & WILCOX CORPORATION, Appellant, et al., Defendant. |
| Court | New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division |
Davis Polk & Wardwell, New York City (Richard E. Nolan and Sharon Katz, of counsel), for appellant.
Standard, Weisberg, Heckerling & Rosow, P.C., New York City (Daniel Kleinman, of counsel), for respondent.
Before MOLLEN, P.J., and BRACKEN, RUBIN, SULLIVAN and ROSENBLATT, JJ.
MEMORANDUM BY THE COURT.
In an action to recover damages for wrongful death, the defendant Babcock & Wilcox Corp. appeals, as limited by its brief, from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Westchester County (Dachenhausen, J.), dated January 29, 1988, as, upon renewal, denied that branch of the motion of the defendant Wheelabrator Corp. which was for a change of venue on the basis of the convenience of witnesses.
ORDERED that the order is modified, on the law, by adding thereto a provision granting leave to the defendants to renew the motion in New York County; as so modified, the order is affirmed insofar as appealed from, with costs to the appellant.
The plaintiff commenced the present action in the Supreme Court, New York County, on the basis that the appellant's place of business is located in that county. The codefendant Wheelabrator Corp. subsequently made a motion in the Supreme Court, Westchester County for a change of venue as of right, pursuant to the procedure outlined in CPLR 511(b). The appellant joined in that motion. The motion was denied by order dated September 23, 1987 on the basis that the plaintiff's choice of venue was proper, since the appellant had listed New York County as the location of its office in a certificate filed pursuant to Business Corporation Law § 1304 (see, CPLR 503[c]; General Precision v. Ametek, Inc., 24 A.D.2d 757, 263 N.Y.S.2d 470; 2 Weinstein-Korn-Miller, NY Civ Prac p 503.06). No appeal was taken from this order.
The order dated September 23, 1987, recites that it was made without prejudice to "renewal" upon affidavits setting forth, inter alia, the names and addresses of prospective witnesses. Thereafter the codefendant Wheelabrator Corp. moved for a discretionary change of venue pursuant to CPLR 510 and, although the appellant did not make any cross motion, the affidavit of its counsel in support of the prior motion was annexed as an exhibit, and was thus before the court on the motion to renew. Under these circumstances, we consider the appellant to have joined in the co-defendant's motion, and hence to have been aggrieved by the denial of this motion (CPLR 5511).
We modify the order...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Kavanaugh v. Kavanaugh
...73 [2015] ; see Free in Christ Pentecostal Church , 64 A.D.3d at 1154, 881 N.Y.S.2d 773 ; but see Voorhees v. Babcock & Wilcox Corp. , 150 A.D.2d 677, 678, 541 N.Y.S.2d 550 [2d Dept. 1989] ). To the extent that Neil's oral attempt to "join in" CBI's and Kavcon's cross motion could be constr......
-
Kavanaugh v. Kavanaugh
... ... Pentecostal Church, 64 A.D.3d at 1154; but see ... Voorhees v Babcock & Wilcox Corp., 150 A.D.2d 677, ... 678 [2d Dept 1989]) ... ...
-
Schwartz v. Yellowbook, Inc.
...is pending, or in any county in that judicial district, or in any adjoining county ( seeCPLR 2212[a]; Voorhees v. Babcock & Wilcox Corp., 150 A.D.2d 677, 541 N.Y.S.2d 550;Matter of D.M.C. Constr. Corp. v. Nash Steel Corp., 70 A.D.2d 635, 637, 416 N.Y.S.2d 649). Schwartz was therefore requir......
-
Minenko v. Swinging Bridge Camp Grounds of N.Y., Inc.
...have entertained the motion (see Schwartz v. Yellowbook, Inc., 118 A.D.3d at 692, 986 N.Y.S.2d 840 ; Voorhees v. Babcock & Wilcox Corp., 150 A.D.2d 677, 678, 541 N.Y.S.2d 550 [1989] ).155 A.D.3d 1414ORDERED that the order is reversed, on the law, with costs, motion denied with leave to rene......