From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Carrasco v. Cablevision System Corp.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, First Department
Mar 3, 1998
248 A.D.2d 122 (N.Y. App. Div. 1998)

Opinion

March 3, 1998

Appeal from the Supreme Court, New York County (Louise Gruner Gans, J.).


Defendant's motion to change venue was not timely made within 15 days after service of its answer with a demand for a change of venue, and thus the motion was addressed to the court's discretion ( see, Gousgounis v. Bravor Plumbing Heating Co., 155 A.D.2d 269, 270). Nor did plaintiff's initial choice of an improper county preclude the court from entertaining his cross motion for a change of venue to Kings County as a matter of discretion ( see, Berberich v. York Scaffold Equip. Corp., 177 A.D.2d 451, 451-452). The court properly exercised its discretion on both motions in consideration of the convenience of plaintiff's three treating physicians with offices in Kings County ( see, Schneeweiss v. Pelkey, 138 A.D.2d 271).

Concur — Sullivan, J. P., Rosenberger, Ellerin and Tom, JJ.


Summaries of

Carrasco v. Cablevision System Corp.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, First Department
Mar 3, 1998
248 A.D.2d 122 (N.Y. App. Div. 1998)
Case details for

Carrasco v. Cablevision System Corp.

Case Details

Full title:MARTIN CARRASCO, Respondent, v. CABLEVISION SYSTEM CORP., Appellant

Court:Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, First Department

Date published: Mar 3, 1998

Citations

248 A.D.2d 122 (N.Y. App. Div. 1998)
669 N.Y.S.2d 808

Citing Cases

Mei Ying Wu v. Waldbaum, Inc.

We reverse. By commencing this action in an improper venue in the first instance, the plaintiff forfeited the…

Goercke v. Kyun

When plaintiff chose an improper venue, she forfeited her right to select venue initially (see, Berberich v.…