P.T.R. Co. v. Teitelbaum
Opinion of the Court
Ordered that the order is affirmed insofar as appealed from, with costs.
The defendant failed to move for a change of venue within 15 days after service of her demand. Therefore, the motion was properly denied (see CPLR 511 [b]; Runcie v Cross County Shopping Mall, 268 AD2d 577 [2000]). The defendant’s claim that she was misled as to the plaintiffs actual residence is not supported by the record. Accordingly, there exists no basis for her contention that her noncompliance with the time limit should be overlooked since she moved promptly after discovering the plaintiff’s true residence. Ritter, J.P., Smith, Friedmann, H. Miller and Crane, JJ., concur.
Case-law data current through December 31, 2025. Source: CourtListener bulk data.