Case Name: Patrick Gilmartin, Appellant, v. George A. Fuller Company and Alfred E. Norton Company, Respondents
Court: New York Supreme Court, Appellate Division
Jurisdiction: New York
Decision Date: 1911-12-28
Citations: 147 A.D. 697
Docket Number: 
Parties: Patrick Gilmartin, Appellant, v. George A. Fuller Company and Alfred E. Norton Company, Respondents.
Judges: 
Reporter: Appellate Division Reports
Volume: 147
Pages: 697–698

Head Matter:
Patrick Gilmartin, Appellant, v. George A. Fuller Company and Alfred E. Norton Company, Respondents.
Second Department,
December 28, 1911.
Trial — venue — negligence action — proof showing residence.
Motion to change the place of trial of an action to recover damages for personal injuries upon the ground that neither of the parties reside in the county where the venue was laid. Held, that although the plaintiff did not reside in that county when injured, he had subsequently and in good faith acquired a residence so that the venue should not be changed.
Appeal by the plaintiff, Patrick Gilmartin,- from an order of the Supreme Court, made at the Westchester Special Term and entered in the office' of the clerk of the county of Westchester on the 26th day of August, 1911, changing the place of trial from the county of Westchester to the county of New York.
Sydney A. Syme, for the appellant.
Herbert C. Smyth [Walter C. Stevens, Frederic C. Scofield, Faulkner Hill and Amos H. Stephens with him on the brief], for the respondents.

Opinion:
Rich, J.:
This action is to recover damages for personal injuries, and the motion was made upon the ground that at the time the action was brought neither party resided in, the county of Westchester. The plaintiff at the time he was injured resided in the city of New York. He says that, upon leaving the hospital where he was taken immediately after the accident, he took up his residence in the coirnty of Westchester, and in doing this he acted upon the advice of his physician; that he did not change his residence in order that this action could be prosecuted in Westchester co'unty, but that he intends to make the city of Mount Vernon his permanent voting residence. In this respect the case at bar differs from Hislop v. Taaffe (141 App. Div. 40).
We think that the question of plaintiff's residence was largely one of intention,"and as it is made to appear "that he changed his domicile in good faith, it was error for the learned justice at. Special Term to make this order and it must be reversed, with ten dollars' costs and disbursements, and the motion denied, with costs.
Jenks, P. J., Hirschberg, Thomas and Carr. concurred.
Order reversed, with ten dollars costs and disbursements, and motion denied, with costs.