Court Opinion

ID: 9945528
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2024-02-27 21:10:09.42148+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T14:25:33.340217
License: Public Domain

Sanders v Abramovitz
               2024 NY Slip Op 30564(U)
                    February 22, 2024
           Supreme Court, New York County
        Docket Number: Index No. 154199/2023
                  Judge: Lisa S. Headley
Cases posted with a "30000" identifier, i.e., 2013 NY Slip
 Op 30001(U), are republished from various New York
 State and local government sources, including the New
  York State Unified Court System's eCourts Service.
 This opinion is uncorrected and not selected for official
                       publication.
                                                                                                                      INDEX NO. 154199/2023
  NYSCEF DOC. NO. 44                                                                                            RECEIVED NYSCEF: 02/22/2024

                                   SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK
                                             NEW YORK COUNTY
            PRESENT:             HON. LISA S. HEADLEY                                              PART                            28M
                                                                                       Justice
            ----------------------------------------------------------------- ----------------X   INDEX NO.          154199/2023
             SHARI SANDERS,
                                                         Plaintiff,                               MOTION DATE         12/12/2023

                                                 - V -
                                                                                                  MOTION SEQ. NO. _ _ _00_1_ __

             PHILLIP ABRAMOVITZ, ROBIN ABRAMOVITZ, ROBIN J.
             ABRAMOVITZ, ESTATE OF CHARLES K. ABRAMOVITZ,
             TRUST OF CHARLES K. ABRAMOVITZ, LIVING WILL AND                                        DECISION + ORDER ON
             TRUST OF CHARLES K. ABRAMOVITZ                                                               MOTION

                                                         Defendant.
            ------------------------------------------------------------------- --------------X

            The following e-filed documents, listed by NYSCEF document number (Motion 001) 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14,
            20,21,22,23,24,25
            were read on this motion to/for                                                       CHANGE VENUE

            Background
                    In this personal injury action, defendants, Philip Abramovitz (individually, and as Trustee
            of the living will and trust of Charles K. Abramovitz), Robin Abramovitz (individually, and as
            Trustee of the living will and trust of Charles K. Abramovitz), the Estate of Charles K. Abramovitz,
            Trust of Charles K. Abramovitz, and Living Will and Trust of Charles K. Abramovitz (collectively
            referred to as "Defendants"), move to change venue from New York County to Suffolk County,
            pursuant to CPLR §§ 510 and 511.
                    On August 8, 2023, the defendants filed a demand for change of place of trial. (NYSCEF
            Doc. No. 5). Plaintiff filed a Notice of Rejection on August 18, 2023. (NYSCEF Doc No 15).
            Defendants then filed the instant motion to change venue. Plaintiff filed opposition to the motion,
            defendants filed a reply; and with the Court's permission, the plaintiff filed a sur-reply. After oral
            argument, and a review of the parties' papers and the relevant statutes and case law, the motion is
            decided accordingly.
                    According to the complaint, Plaintiff, Shari Sanders ("plaintiff'), who is a resident of
            Suffolk county, alleges that on May 21, 2022, while she was visiting with defendant, Philip
            Abramovitz, at his home located at 29 Canoe Road, Hampton Bays, New York ("subject
            property"), she fell down the stairs and suffered personal injuries. Plaintiff commenced this action
            for negligence against the defendants for their alleged failure to upkeep the subject property, which
            caused her to suffer injuries. (NYSCEF Doc No 1). Plaintiff alleges that the individual defendants,
            Philip Abramovitz and Robin Abramovitz, are proper parties because they are the trustees of the
            living will and trust of Charles K. Abramovitz, which owns the subject property where the incident
            occurred.
            Defendants' Motion to Change Venue
                    In support of the motion to change venue, the defendants submit, inter alia, the attorney
            affirmation of A viva Stein (NYSCEF Doc. No. 10), the pleadings (NYSCEF Doc. No. 11 & 12),

             154199/2023 SANDERS, SHARI vs. ABRAMOVITZ, PHILLIP ET AL                                                 Page 1 of4
             Motion No. 001

                                                                            1 of 4
[* 1]
                                                                                                    INDEX NO. 154199/2023
  NYSCEF DOC. NO. 44                                                                        RECEIVED NYSCEF: 02/22/2024

            and the demand to change venue (NYSCEF Doc. No. 13), and the Notice of Rejection (NYSCEF
            Doc. No. 15).
                     In the motion, the defendants argue, inter alia, that plaintiff's failure to timely respond to
            the Defendants' demand for change of place of trial, pursuant to CPLR §511, constitutes an
            acknowledgement by the plaintiff that the venue is improper. Defendants argue that plaintiff's
            selection of New York County as the venue was only based on the residence of Defendant Robin
            Abramovitz, who is a trustee of the subject premises located in Suffolk County. In addition,
            defendants argue that venue in New York is improper because there is no substantial nexus
            between New York County, the underlying claim, and the parties in the case. Defendants argue
            that it is well-settled that the venue of an action should generally be held in the county in which
            the cause of action arose. See, CPLR § 503(a). Therefore, the proper venue in this action is Suffolk
            County.
            Plaintiff's Opposition to Defendant's Motion to Change Venue
                     In opposition, plaintiff submits the attorney affirmation of Melissa Lenowitz (NYSCEF
            Doc. No. 17), the Notice of Rejection (NYSCEF Doc. No. 18), and the Insurance Disclosure for
            the defendants. (See, NYSCEF Doc. No. 19).
                     Plaintiff argues that the demand procedure set forth in CPLR § 511 (b) does not require that
            the plaintiff submit any affidavit, rather the provision sets forth conditions precedent to defendant's
            entitlement to file a motion for change of venue. Plaintiff argues that the 5-day deadline after
            service of the demand to serve an "affidavit showing either that the county specified by the
            defendant is not proper or that the county designated by him is proper" is simply a method offered
            by statute to resolve a dispute over venue without motion practice. For instance, if the parties agree
            that a change of venue is appropriate, they may do so either with the plaintiff consenting to the
            defendant's demand for change of venue; or filing an affidavit showing that the chosen venue is
            proper.
                     Plaintiff also argues New York County is a proper venue because there is no dispute that
            defendant Robin Abramovitz is domiciled in this county. Plaintiff submits the insurance policy
            declaration for the subject property, showing that her address is listed as "400 East 84th St, Apt.
            17A, New York, N.Y. 10028." Plaintiff asserts that defendants' arguments are red herrings because
            CPLR §503 establishes that neither the location of the incident nor the residence of the plaintiff
            alone is determinative of proper venue, as long as at least one defendant resides in New York
            County, plaintiff's choice of venue in New York County is proper under CPLR §503.
                     In addition, plaintiff argues that defendants' have not met their evidentiary burden in
            demonstrating that Suffolk County is the proper venue for this action. Plaintiff asserts that the only
            evidence offered by the defendants to support the argument that Robin Abramovitz is an improper
            party is through their attorney's affirmation, which lacks personal knowledge of the facts asserted,
            and does not cite to any legal authority.
            Defendants' Reply in Support of Motion to Change Venue
                     In reply, defendants further argue, inter alia, that they would be prejudiced by litigating
            the claims "before a court and jury unacquainted with Suffolk County solely because one
            uninvolved trustee has a Manhattan street address." Defendants also reiterate that the plaintiff, and
            defendant Philip Abramovitz are residents of Suffolk County, and the residence where the accident
            occurred is in Suffolk County. Defendants argue that there would be no prejudice to plaintiff
            should this matter be moved to the most appropriate venue because she received medical treatment
            for her alleged injuries, as well as the medical experts for trial are all located in Suffolk County.
            Defendants also argue and submit case law to support the notion that when the plaintiff failed to

             154199/2023 SANDERS, SHARI vs. ABRAMOVITZ, PHILLIP ET AL                               Page 2 of 4
             Motion No. 001

                                                            2 of 4
[* 2]
                                                                                                   INDEX NO. 154199/2023
  NYSCEF DOC. NO. 44                                                                       RECEIVED NYSCEF: 02/22/2024

            provide an affidavit establishing New York County as the proper venue for the matter within the
            timelines prescribed by statute, plaintiff forfeited her right to choose the venue. See, Simon v.
            Usher, 93 A.D.3d 401(1st Dep't 2012).
            Plaintiff's Sur-Reply
                    The Court permitted the plaintiff to submit a Sur-Reply. The plaintiff further argued, inter
            alia, that under CPLR §503, a plaintiff may designate a venue of their choosing as long as "the
            county in which one of the parties resided when it [the claim] was commenced." (NYSCEF Doc.
            No. 23). Plaintiff also contends that the decedent, Charles K. Abramovitz was a resident of New
            York County, and he created his trust and estate in New York County. Plaintiff claims that the
            Last Will and Testament of Charles K. Abramovitz, created the Trust of Charles K. Abramovitz,
            and the Estate of Charles K. Abramovitz, and designates "that the joinder and representation
            provisions of the New York Surrogate's Court Procedure Act§ 315(5), or any successor provision
            thereto, shall apply in any judicial proceeding." (NYSCEF Doc. No. 24 at page 23). Based on this
            provision, the plaintiff argues that "it is clear that defendants chose New York County as the forum
            for legal action wherein the Trust, the Estate and/or fiduciaries are involved."
                                                          DISCUSSION

            CPLR §503 states:
                   "[e]xcept where otherwise prescribed by law, the place of trial shall be in the
                  county in which one of the parties resided when it was commenced; the county
                  in which a substantial part of the events or omissions giving rise to the claim
                  occurred; or, if none of the parties then resided in the state, in any county
                  designated by the plaintiff. A party resident in more than one county shall be
                  deemed a resident of each such county." CPLR §503(a).

            CPLR §510 states:
                  " [t ]he court, upon motion, may change the place of trial of an action where:
                     1. the county designated for that purpose is not a proper county; or
                     2. there is reason to believe that an impartial trial cannot be had in the proper
                     county; or
                     3. the convenience of material witnesses and the ends of justice will be
                     promoted by the change. CPLR §510.

            CPLR § 511 (a) states:
                   "[a] demand under subdivision (b) for change of place of trial on the ground that
                  the county designated for that purpose is not a proper county shall be served with
                  the answer or before the answer is served. A motion for change of place of trial
                  on any other ground shall be made within a reasonable time after commencement
                  of the action." CPLR §511 (a).

            CPLR § 511 (b) states:
                  "[t]he defendant shall serve a written demand that the action be tried in a county
                  he specifies as proper. Thereafter the defendant may move to change the place
                  of trial within fifteen days after service of the demand, unless within five days
                  after such service plaintiff serves a written consent to change the place of trial to
                  that specified by the defendant. Defendant may notice such motion to be heard

             154199/2023 SANDERS, SHARI vs. ABRAMOVITZ, PHILLIP ET AL                              Page 3 of 4
             Motion No. 001

                                                            3 of 4
[* 3]
                                                                                                      INDEX NO. 154199/2023
  NYSCEF DOC. NO. 44                                                                           RECEIVED NYSCEF: 02/22/2024

                    as if the action were pending in the county he specified, unless plaintiff within
                    five days after service of the demand serves an affidavit showing either that the
                    county specified by the defendant is not proper or that the county designated by
                    him is proper." CPLR § 511 (b).

                    Here, Plaintiff is a resident of Suffolk County. Defendant Philip Abramovitz is a resident
            of Suffolk County. Defendant Robin Abramovitz is a resident of New York County. Defendant,
            the Estate of Charles K. Abramovitz and the Living Will and Trust of Charles K. Abramovitz are
            "domiciled" in New York based on the Last Will and Testament of Charles K. Abramovitz that
            was executed in New York county, and chose New York county as the forum for legal action.
                    Upon reading the provision, CPLR §511 (b), the Court finds that a plaintiffs failure to serve
            the affidavit showing, either that the county specified by the defendant is not proper or that the
            county designated by plaintiff is proper, will not preclude plaintiff from opposing the merits of
            defendant's motion, regardless of where the motion is made. The service or non-service of the
            affidavit affects only the range of defendant's choices of location for making the motion. The
            plaintiffs failure to serve the affidavit may support a transfer of venue to the county demanded by
            the defendant if the defendant "established that the county chosen by plaintiff was improper."
            Lynch v. Cyprus Sash & Door Co., 2000, 272 A.D.2d 260, 261(1st Dep't 2000). (Emphasis added).
            That is not the case here because the venue designated by plaintiff is indeed proper, under CPLR
            §503(a), since at least one of the parties, Robin Abramovitz, is domiciled in New York County.
                    The Defendants' argument that the place of trial shall be changed based on the convenience
            of witnesses fails because the defendant does not specify: (1) the identity of the proposed
            witnesses; (2) the manner in which they will be inconvenienced by a trial in the county in which
            the action was commenced; (3) that the witnesses have been contacted and are available and
            willing to testify for the movant; (4) the nature of the anticipated testimony; and (5) the manner in
            which the anticipated testimony is material to the issues raised in the case. See, Leopold v.
            Goldstein, 283 A.D.2d 319,320 (2001). Therefore, the defendants' motion to change venue must
            be denied.
                    Accordingly, it is hereby
                     ORDERED that defendants' motion to change the venue of the instant action from New
            York County to Suffolk County is DENIED, and it is further
                    ORDERED that the parties shall proceed with discovery in a good faith and an expeditious
            manner; and it is further
                    ORDERED that any requested relief sought not expressly addressed herein has
            nonetheless been considered.

                    This constitutes the Decision an Order of this Court.

                    2/22/2024                                            ~"='~
                                                                            :l!!J'.AAoo~~~'}.~--cL;!f.;...
                                                                        ' - - \ •n , ,

                                                                        8
                      DATE                                                          LISA S. HEADLEY, J.S.C.

                                     ~
             CHECK ONE:                  CASE DISPOSED                     NON-FINAL DISPOSITION

                                         GRANTED         0    DENIED       GRANTED IN PART           □ OTHER
             APPLICATION:                SETTLE ORDER                      SUBMIT ORDER

             CHECK IF APPROPRIATE:       INCLUDES TRANSFER/REASSIGN        FIDUCIARY APPOINTMENT     □ REFERENCE

             154199/2023 SANDERS, SHARI vs. ABRAMOVITZ, PHILLIP ET AL                                 Page 4 of 4
             Motion No. 001

                                                             4 of 4
[* 4]