Esser v. Ciarmella
Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York
1DissentRubin, J.
Apparently, plaintiffs are to be deprived of their right to have this action tried in a properly designated County of their choice (CPLR 509) for frivolous reasons supported neither by the moving papers nor the well established precedent of this Court. It is undisputed that plaintiffs, students at the Stony Brook campus of the State University of New York, were both permanent residents of New York County at the time this action was commenced and, thus, designation of this County for trial of the action was entirely proper (CPLR 503 [a]). The affidavits of defendant’s counsel, submitted in…
2Cases cited13 opinions
- Pittman v. MaherAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1994
- Messinger v. FestaAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1983
- Kucich v. LeibowitzAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1979
- Clark v. New Rochelle Hospital Medical CenterAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1991
- Firoozan v. Key Food SupermarketAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1989
8 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.