From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Merendino v. Lloyd

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Apr 8, 1991
172 A.D.2d 594 (N.Y. App. Div. 1991)

Opinion

April 8, 1991

Appeal from the Supreme Court, Kings County (Williams, J.).


Ordered that the order is reversed insofar as appealed from, on the law, and the motion and cross motion are denied; and it is further,

Ordered that the appellants are awarded one bill of costs.

The basis of venue herein being the county of residence of the plaintiff Joseph Merendino at the time of commencement of the action, we find that venue was properly placed in Kings County in the first instance (see, CPLR 503 [a]; cf., Torriero v. Austin Truck Rental, 143 A.D.2d 595, 596). Since the burden was on the party alleging improper venue, it was incumbent upon the defendants to produce evidence to establish that the plaintiff's residence was not in Kings County. This they failed to do. Hence, the defendants were not entitled to a change of venue as a matter of right (see, CPLR 510). Mangano, P.J., Brown, Harwood and Miller, JJ., concur.


Summaries of

Merendino v. Lloyd

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Apr 8, 1991
172 A.D.2d 594 (N.Y. App. Div. 1991)
Case details for

Merendino v. Lloyd

Case Details

Full title:JOSEPH MERENDINO et al., Appellants, v. THOMAS F. LLOYD et al., Respondents

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

Date published: Apr 8, 1991

Citations

172 A.D.2d 594 (N.Y. App. Div. 1991)

Citing Cases

TENER CONSULTING SERV. v. FSA MAIN ST., LLC

On a motion to change venue pursuant to CPLR 510 and 511, it is defendant's burden to establish that…

Corea v. Browne

The plaintiff properly commenced this action in Bronx County based upon the county of his residence at the…