Wade Clark Mulcahy LLP

<span style="font-family: Calibri;"><span style="font-size: medium;"><span style="color: #000000;">Is it a plaintiff-friendly venue or a defendant-friendly venue? This is one of the first questions asked at the onset of any litigation.  Where a case is venued matters. <i> <a href="http://blog.wcmlaw.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/09/Nunez-v.-Yonkers.pdf">Nunez v. Yonkers Racing Corp.</a> </i></span></span><span style="color: #000000; font-size: medium;">serves as a reminder to consider if the plaintiff has properly laid venue and move timely when not.</span></span>
<span style="color: #000000; font-family: Calibri; font-size: medium;"> </span><span style="font-family: Calibri;"><span style="font-size: medium;"><span style="color: #000000;">In <i>Nunez, </i></span></span><span style="color: #000000; font-size: medium;">the plaintiff filed his action in Kings County (widely regarded as a plaintiff-friendly venue), alleging that he resided in Brooklyn.  The accident occurred in Westchester (considered a more defendant-friendly venue).  At his deposition, the plaintiff admitted that he has always been a Bronx resident.  Defendant moved to change the venue to Westchester.  The lower court denied the motion.  The Appellate Division reversed and found that the plaintiff, in selecting an improper venue when filing his complaint, had forfeited the right to choose the venue.  Moreover, the court held that the motion to change venue, which has to be filed within 15 days of serving an answer to the complaint, was timely because the defendant promptly moved after learning the plaintiff’s true residency. </span></span>
Thanks to Georgia Coats for her contribution.
For more information, contact Denise Fontana Ricci at <a href="mailto:dricci@wcmlaw.com">dricci@wcmlaw.com</a>.
&nbsp;