Christomanos v Vick

Christomanos v Vick 2012 NY Slip Op 03529 Decided on May 3, 2012 Appellate Division, First Department Published by New York State Law Reporting Bureau pursuant to Judiciary Law § 431. This opinion is uncorrected and subject to revision before publication in the Official Reports.

Decided on May 3, 2012
Saxe, J.P., Sweeny, Moskowitz, Freedman, Manzanet-Daniels, JJ.
7543 302878/10

[*1]Katherine T. Christomanos, Plaintiff-Appellant,

v

Danwatie Vick, Defendant-Respondent.




Scarcella Law Offices, White Plains (M. Sean Duffy of counsel)
for appellant.
Congdon, Flaherty, O'Callaghan, Reid, Donlon, Travis &
Fishlinger, Uniondale (Kathleen D. Foley of counsel), for respondent.

Order, Supreme Court, Bronx County (Alison Y. Tuitt, J.), entered February 17, 2011, which, in an action for personal injuries arising out of a motor vehicle accident, granted defendant's motion to change venue from Bronx County to Westchester County, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

Defendant showed that the venue chosen by plaintiff was improper since none of the parties resided in Bronx County when the action was commenced (see Hernandez v Seminatore, 48 AD3d 260 [2008]; CPLR 503[a], 510[1]). Defendant submitted, inter alia, the records of the Department of Motor Vehicles showing that she resided in Westchester County when the action was commenced and her affidavit stating that she exclusively lived in Westchester County at that time (see Weiss v Wal-Mart Stores E., L.P., 83 AD3d 461 [2011]).

In opposition, plaintiff failed to raise an issue of fact as to whether defendant resided in Bronx County when the action was commenced. Plaintiff submitted the police accident report, listing defendant's address before she moved; an affidavit identifying defendant's former husband as the person on whom process was served; and records of defendant's voter registration in 2000, none of which is probative of defendant's residence when the action was commenced (see e.g. Hernandez at 260).

We have considered plaintiff's remaining contentions and find them unavailing.

THIS CONSTITUTES THE DECISION AND ORDER
OF THE SUPREME COURT, APPELLATE DIVISION, FIRST DEPARTMENT.

ENTERED: MAY 3, 2012

CLERK