From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Rajmohan v. North America

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, First Department
Mar 1, 2007
38 A.D.3d 202 (N.Y. App. Div. 2007)

Summary

stating that “a foreign corporation's designation of the location of its office ... constitutes a designation of its residence” under state procedural rules, but not discussing whether the location of a registered agent affects venue

Summary of this case from Magill v. Ford Motor Co.

Opinion

No. 228N.

March 1, 2007.

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Milton A. Tingling, J.), entered May 12, 2006, which granted the motion of defendant Volvo Cars of North America (Volvo Cars) for a change of venue to Nassau County pursuant to CPLR 510 (1), unanimously reversed, on the law, without costs, the motion denied, the transfer order vacated, and plaintiffs' cross motion to retain venue in New York County granted.

John J. Appell, New York, for appellants.

No appearance or brief on behalf of respondents.

Before: Tom, J.P., Sullivan, Nardelli, Gonzalez and Malone, JJ.


A foreign corporation's designation of the location of its office in a statement filed with the Secretary of State constitutes a designation of its residence for venue purposes under CPLR 503 (c) ( Nadle v L.O. Realty Corp., 286 AD2d 130, 132; see also Johanson v J.B. Hunt Transp., Inc., 15 AD3d 268, 269). Defendant Volvo Cars has so designated New York County, and its argument that it has never actually maintained an office in New York County is one that has been rejected by this Court ( id.; see also Job v Subaru Leasing Corp., 30 AD3d 159). Furthermore, even if Volvo had made its motion pursuant to CPLR 510 (3), there is no evidence that the convenience of material witnesses and the ends of justice would best be served if venue were transferred to Nassau County, the county where defendant car dealer Long Island Auto Group maintains its principal place of business. Plaintiffs reside and the accident occurred in Richmond County and Volvo Cars' claimed principal place of business is Rockleigh, New Jersey.


Summaries of

Rajmohan v. North America

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, First Department
Mar 1, 2007
38 A.D.3d 202 (N.Y. App. Div. 2007)

stating that “a foreign corporation's designation of the location of its office ... constitutes a designation of its residence” under state procedural rules, but not discussing whether the location of a registered agent affects venue

Summary of this case from Magill v. Ford Motor Co.

stating that “a foreign corporation's designation of the location of its office ... constitutes a designation of its residence” under state procedural rules, but not discussing whether the location of a registered agent affects venue

Summary of this case from Magill v. Ford Motor Co.
Case details for

Rajmohan v. North America

Case Details

Full title:RAJMOHAN SHETTY et al., Appellants, v. VOLVO CARS OF NORTH AMERICA, LLC…

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

Date published: Mar 1, 2007

Citations

38 A.D.3d 202 (N.Y. App. Div. 2007)
2007 N.Y. Slip Op. 1769
830 N.Y.S.2d 554

Citing Cases

Magill v. Ford Motor Co.

her, 816 S.W.2d 194, 198 (Mo. 1991) (noting that the statutory definition of residence for a corporation was…

Sultana v. St. Elizabeth Med. Ctr.

Defendants moved to change the venue, arguing that EPSNY's most recent biennial statements, submitted in…