Legal Opinion
Accardi v. Kaufmann
Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York
Decided March 8, 2011PublishedCited by 7 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
A demand to change venue based on the designation of an improper county (see CPLR 510 [1]) “shall be served with the answer or before the answer is served” (CPLR 511 [a]; see Thomas v Guttikonda, 68 AD3d 853, 854 [2009]). Since the defendant Trevor Kaufmann did not serve his demand for a change of venue until after he served his answer, he was not entitled to change venue as of right (see Thomas v Guttikonda, 68 AD3d at 854; Jeffrey L. Rosenberg & Assoc., LLC v Lajaunie, 54 AD3d 813, 816 [2008]). Thus, his motion became one addressed to the motion court’s discretion (see Thomas v Guttikonda,…
2Cases cited5 opinions
- Philogene v. Fuller Auto LeasingAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1990
- Thomas v. GuttikondaAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 2009
- Jeffrey L. Rosenberg & Associates, LLC v. LajaunieAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 2008
- O'Connor v. Roman Catholic Diocese of Rockville CentreAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1996
- Peretzman v. EliasAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1995
3Cited by7 opinions
- Forbes v. RubinovichAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 2012
- Brash v. RichardsAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 2011
- Nunez v. Yonkers Racing Corp.Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 2017
- Kallas v. CostelloAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 2011
- Castaneda v. CastanedaNew York Supreme Court · 2012
2 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.