Opinion
570821/09.
Decided October 1, 2010.
Defendant, as limited by his briefs, appeals from that portion of an order of the Civil Court of the City of New York, New York County (Anil C. Singh, J.), entered August 5, 2009, which denied his motion to dismiss the complaint based on improper venue.
PRESENT: McKeon, P.J., Shulman, Hunter, Jr., JJ.
Order (Anil C. Singh, J.), entered August 5, 2009, insofar as appealed from, affirmed, without costs.
A transitory action in Civil Court shall be brought "in the county in which one of the parties resides" (CCA 301[a]). For the purpose of determining proper venue, a corporation, such as plaintiff, is a resident of any county wherein it keeps an office (CCA 305[b]). Since it is undisputed that plaintiff's place of business was located in New York County, the action was properly venued in that county and Civil Court properly denied defendant's motion to disturb plaintiff's venue choice. Moreover, contrary to defendant's contention, Civil Court did not have authority to grant a discretionary change of venue to Suffolk County District Court ( see Personnel Career Servs. Inc. v Pizza Huts of Dutchess County, Inc., 149 Misc 2d 729; Medicorp v Avis Corp., 122 Misc 2d 813, 815). To the extent the pro se defendant's briefs on appeal can be construed as raising a challenge to whether a proper basis exists for Civil Court to exercise personal jurisdiction over defendant, any such challenge was waived by defendant based on his failure to raise it in his answer or seek relief by way of a motion pursuant to CPLR 3211(a) ( see Interlink Metals Chemicals, Inc. v Kazdan, 222 AD2d 55; Wiesener v Avis Rent-A-Car, Inc., 182 AD2d 372).
THIS CONSTITUTES THE DECISION AND ORDER OF THE COURT.