From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Carbajal v. Bobo Robo, Inc.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Dec 9, 2002
300 A.D.2d 335 (N.Y. App. Div. 2002)

Opinion

2002-04364

Submitted November 13, 2002.

December 9, 2002.

In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, the plaintiff appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Mason, J.), dated April 9, 2002, which upon granting the motion of the defendants Bobo Robo, Inc., d/b/a Regents, Edward Hardy, Pat Illig, and Michael Ferreri, in effect, for leave to reargue, in effect, vacated a prior order of the same court, dated January 22, 2002, denying their motion to transfer venue of the action from Kings County to New York County, and granted the motion.

Sivin Miller, LLP, New York, N.Y. (Edward Sivin of counsel), for appellant.

Hawkins, Feretic, Daly Maroney, P.C., New York, N.Y. (William E. Fay III of counsel), for respondents.

Before: FRED T. SANTUCCI, J.P., NANCY E. SMITH, GLORIA GOLDSTEIN, HOWARD MILLER, WILLIAM F. MASTRO, JJ.


DECISION ORDER

ORDERED that the order is reversed, on the law, with costs, the motion is denied, the order dated January 22, 2002, is reinstated, and the Clerk of the Supreme Court, New York County, is directed to transfer the file of the action to the Clerk of the Supreme Court, Kings County.

The respondents asserted no new or newly-discovered facts on their motion. Accordingly, the motion is properly denominated a motion for reargument (see Granato v. Waldbaum's Inc., 289 A.D.2d 289).

The Supreme Court improvidently exercised its discretion, by granting reargument, and upon reargument, in effect, vacating its prior order and granting the motion for a change of venue. The respondents failed to make a sufficient showing of entitlement to a change of venue based upon the convenience of witnesses (see CPLR 510; O'Brien v. Vassar Bros. Hosp., 207 A.D.2d 169, 172-173). Furthermore, in light of the respondents' failure to deny that the defendant Michael Ferreri maintained a residence in Kings County, the plaintiff's choice to designate that county as the place for trial was proper (see CPLR 503[a]; CPLR 510). Accordingly, the order granting reargument must be reversed and the prior order of the Supreme Court dated January 22, 2002, reinstated.

SANTUCCI, J.P., SMITH, GOLDSTEIN, H. MILLER and MASTRO, JJ., concur.


Summaries of

Carbajal v. Bobo Robo, Inc.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Dec 9, 2002
300 A.D.2d 335 (N.Y. App. Div. 2002)
Case details for

Carbajal v. Bobo Robo, Inc.

Case Details

Full title:IVAN CARBAJAL, appellant, v. BOBO ROBO, INC., d/b/a REGENTS, ET AL.…

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

Date published: Dec 9, 2002

Citations

300 A.D.2d 335 (N.Y. App. Div. 2002)
750 N.Y.S.2d 791

Citing Cases

Rivera v. Colon

Here, as it is undisputed that defendant resides in Bronx County, plaintiff was permitted to sue him there…