From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Regal Boy Enterprises International VII, Inc. v. MLQ Realty Management, LLC

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Oct 24, 2005
22 A.D.3d 738 (N.Y. App. Div. 2005)

Summary

In Regal Boy Enterprises International VII, Inc. v. MLQ Realty Management, LLC, 22 AD3d 738 (2nd Dept. 2005), the Court held that an action seeking a permanent injunction against interference or interruption by defendant of plaintiff's construction on its leasehold premises was required to be heard in the county in which the premises was located.

Summary of this case from Shulamith Sch. for Girls Inc. v. Shulamith Sch. for Girls of Brooklyn

Opinion

2005-00078.

October 24, 2005.

In an action, inter alia, to permanently enjoin the defendant from interfering with or interrupting the plaintiff's construction of its leasehold premises pursuant to a certain commercial lease, the defendant appeals from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Rockland County (Weiner, J.), dated November 22, 2004, as denied its cross motion to change the venue of the action from Rockland County to Dutchess County.

Andrew P. Zweben, Kingston, N.Y., for appellant.

Before: H. Miller, J.P., Crane, Krausman, Rivera and Lifson, JJ., concur.


Ordered that the order is reversed insofar as appealed from, on the law, with costs, the cross motion is granted, and the Clerk of the Supreme Court, Rockland County, is directed to deliver to the Clerk of the Supreme Court, Dutchess County, all papers filed in this action and certified copies of all minutes and entries ( see CPLR 511 [d]).

The Supreme Court erred in denying the defendant's cross motion to change venue of the action from Rockland County to Dutchess County. The complaint seeks, inter alia, to permanently enjoin the defendant from interfering with or interrupting the plaintiff's construction of its leasehold premises. Although the plaintiff is a resident of Rockland County ( see CPLR 503 [c]) and venue ordinarily would have been proper there, this action is one whose venue is "otherwise prescribed by law" (CPLR 503 [a]; see Spellman Food Servs. v. Partrick, 90 AD2d 791). Because the relief sought "would affect the title to, or the possession, use or enjoyment of, real property" (CPLR 507) located in Dutchess County, venue is proper only in that county ( see Fay's Inc. v. Park Ctr. Dev., 226 AD2d 1067, 1068; Avis Rent-A-Car Sys. v. Edmin Realty Corp., 209 AD2d 656, 657-658; Moschera Catalano v. Advanced Structures Corp., 104 AD2d 306; Spellman Food Servs. v. Partrick, 90 AD2d 791, supra; see generally Siegel, NY Prac § 121, at 214 [4th ed]).


Summaries of

Regal Boy Enterprises International VII, Inc. v. MLQ Realty Management, LLC

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Oct 24, 2005
22 A.D.3d 738 (N.Y. App. Div. 2005)

In Regal Boy Enterprises International VII, Inc. v. MLQ Realty Management, LLC, 22 AD3d 738 (2nd Dept. 2005), the Court held that an action seeking a permanent injunction against interference or interruption by defendant of plaintiff's construction on its leasehold premises was required to be heard in the county in which the premises was located.

Summary of this case from Shulamith Sch. for Girls Inc. v. Shulamith Sch. for Girls of Brooklyn

In Regal Boy, supra, plaintiff-builder sued to enjoin defendant from interfering with or interrupting plaintiff's construction of its leasehold premises pursuant to a commercial lease.

Summary of this case from Alpert v. Alpert
Case details for

Regal Boy Enterprises International VII, Inc. v. MLQ Realty Management, LLC

Case Details

Full title:REGAL BOY ENTERPRISES INTERNATIONAL VII, INC., Respondent, v. MLQ REALTY…

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

Date published: Oct 24, 2005

Citations

22 A.D.3d 738 (N.Y. App. Div. 2005)
2005 N.Y. Slip Op. 7943
803 N.Y.S.2d 667

Citing Cases

Chomicki v. Bank of Am., N.A.

Chase maintains that plaintiff's desired relief "clearly would affect Borrower's title to, or the possession,…

Chomicki v. Bank of Am., N.A.

Chase maintains that plaintiff's desired relief "clearly would affect Borrower's title to, or the possession,…