From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Mitchell v. Palace Realty Co.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, First Department
Jan 23, 1990
157 A.D.2d 561 (N.Y. App. Div. 1990)

Opinion

January 23, 1990

Appeal from the Supreme Court, Bronx County (Hansel McGee, J.).


The instant action seeks damages for personal injuries allegedly sustained by plaintiffs after repeatedly inhaling noxious fumes at plaintiffs' place of employment in Queens County. Plaintiffs place venue in Bronx County, the principal place of business of defendant GMC. After issue was joined, consolidation was granted without opposition, but defendant Palace cross-moved to transfer venue from Bronx County to Queens County, on the grounds that since the city was a party, venue must be placed in the county in which the cause of action arose (CPLR 504), and on discretionary grounds (CPLR 510).

It is conceded that the plaintiffs reside in Queens County, that the injuries were sustained in Queens County, that all investigations by police, fire and the Department of Environmental Conservation occurred in Queens County, that plaintiffs were initially treated in a hospital located in Queens County, and that most, if not all, of plaintiff's nonparty witnesses reside in Queens County.

It is well settled that the venue of an action should generally be in the county in which the cause of action arose. (Sendrow v Ruskin Fee Corp., 139 A.D.2d 455.) We held in Ford v. Servistar Corp. ( 133 A.D.2d 23) that the principal place of business of one of the defendants, standing alone, is not sufficient to maintain the venue designated by plaintiff in the presence of a proper cross motion for a change of venue.

Further, the plaintiffs' choice of Bronx County disregards the convenience of those witnesses who will testify as to liability, since most of those witnesses concededly are residents of Queens County. (See, Risoli v. Long Is. Light. Co., 138 A.D.2d 316. )

Finally, we find, on the basis of CPLR 504 (3) that Queens County is the only proper venue, since the City of New York has been impleaded and the cause of action arose there. (See, Haroian v. Nusbaum, 84 A.D.2d 532.)

Concur — Murphy, P.J., Carro, Kassal and Rosenberger, JJ.


Summaries of

Mitchell v. Palace Realty Co.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, First Department
Jan 23, 1990
157 A.D.2d 561 (N.Y. App. Div. 1990)
Case details for

Mitchell v. Palace Realty Co.

Case Details

Full title:ANNE MITCHELL et al., Appellants, v. PALACE REALTY CO., Respondent and…

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

Date published: Jan 23, 1990

Citations

157 A.D.2d 561 (N.Y. App. Div. 1990)
550 N.Y.S.2d 303

Citing Cases

Morales v. City of New York

Defendant City's delay in seeking a change of venue to New York County where the cause of action arose was…