MR v. JR

Family Law

New York Law Journal


Justice James Quinn

Husband filed for divorce and wife subsequently moved to change venue from Suffolk to New York County claiming no party resided in Suffolk. The court noted the parties' Sag Harbor home was utilised by both parties during the marriage as a summer home, and a "long weekend" home. It stated notwithstanding use of the house in such capacities, same still constituted some degree of permanency. The court further noted that while wife and the children moved into an apartment in Manhattan after the parties separated, she continued to use the Sag Harbor house, evidencing use of the home with some degree of permanency, and for some length of time sufficient to constitute "residence." Thus, the court denied wife's motion seeking to change venue to New York County under CPLR 503(a). Wife also moved to change venue for the convenience of material witnesses. However, the court noted wife's motion was devoid of any of the four requirements regarding the witnesses, stating her general statement that it would be "extremely inconvenient" for them to come to Central Islip, was insufficient to satisfy CPLR 510(3). Thus, wife's motion to change venue was denied.

What's being said

Comments are not moderated. To report offensive comments, click here.

Preparing comment abuse report for Article# 1202591285805

Thank you!

This article's comments will be reviewed.