Case Name: GOLDSTEIN v. MARX et al.
Court: New York Supreme Court, Appellate Division
Jurisdiction: New York
Decision Date: 1902-06-20
Citations: 77 N.Y.S. 956
Docket Number: 
Parties: GOLDSTEIN v. MARX et al.
Judges: 
Reporter: West's New York Supplement
Volume: 77
Pages: 956–957

Head Matter:
(73 App. Div. 545.)
GOLDSTEIN v. MARX et al.
(Supreme Court, Appellate Division, First Department.
June 20, 1902.)
1. Venue—Place of Trial.
Where the place of trial named in a summons and that named in a complaint are different, the county named in the complaint determines the venue of the action.
2. Same—Variance.
Where an attorney inadvertently names a different place of trial in the complaint from that named in the summons, which was the proper county, it will not effect a change in the place of trial, where he moves promptly to correct the error before his adversary has acted upon the assumption that the change was intentional.
Appeal from special term, New York county.
Action by Abraham Goldstein against Samuel Marx and Charles Jacobs. From an order denying defendants’ motion to compel plaintiff to accept service of an order extending defendants’ time to answer, they appeal. Affirmed.
The following is the opinion of GILDERSEEEVE, J., delivered at special term:
The motion is to compel plaintiff to accept the service of an affidavit and order extending time of defendants to answer. The summons places the venue in Queens county, while the complaint places it in New York county. The order was obtained in New York county. The defendants appeared in the action, and in their notice of appearance placed the venue in New York county. The plaintiff’s attorney, upon receiving the notice of appearance, scratched out “New York county,” as claimed by defendants, and replaced it by “Queens county,” against the protest of defendants’ attorney. Thereafter defendants’ attorney notified plaintiff’s attorney, informing him that the complaint was entitled New York county, and that defendants elected to have the action remain in New York county. Thereafter defendants obtained an order in New York county extending defendants’ time to answer. This order was returned, on the ground that the affidavit and order were not folioed, as required by rule 19. The defendants thereupon make this motion in New York county to compel plaintiff to accept said affidavit and order. The plaintiff objects, and asserts that the motion should not have been made in New York county, because the venue of the action is Queens county. Section 769 of the Code provides that a motion, on notice, cannot be made in New York county in an action triable elsewhere. The rule is that, where the place of trial named in the summons and that named in the complaint are different, the.county named in the complaint determines the venue of the action. Fisher v. Ogden, 12 App.' Div. 602, 43 N. Y. Supp. 111. .The plaintiff claims that it was a mere inadvertence in giving New York county in the complaint as the place of trial. The mere inadvertence of an attorney in naming a different place of trial in the complaint from that named in the summons will not be held to effect a change of the place of trial, provided he moves promptly in the matter to correct the error, and does not permit his adversary to act upon the assumption that the change was intentional. Fisher v. Ogden, supra. It appears that the attorney for plaintiff did notify defendants’ attorney before the latter had acted upon the assumption that the venue was in New York county, except as to the notice of appearance, which was promptly corrected by plaintiff’s attorney, according to defendants’ evidence, and which plaintiff swears was already entitled “Queens county” by defendants’ attorney himself. I incline to think that the venue is in Queens county, and that this motion cannot be made in New York county. Motion denied, without prejudice.
Argued before VAN BRUNT, P. J., and McLAUGHLIN, PATTERSON, and LAUGHLIN, JJ.
A. H. Parkhurst, for appellants.
Eli S. Schreier, for respondent.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM.
Order affirmed, with $10 costs and disbursements, on opinion of court below.