Meth v. GorfineMeth v. Gorfine
The initial selection of venue was based on evidence that defendant Ramos resided in Bronx County. Defendants timely demanded a change of venue based on improper designation (
Plaintiffs’ claim of estoppel, based on their purported reliance on the Bronx address appearing on Ramos‘s driver‘s license and on the accident report, as well as his statement to plaintiffs’ investigator that he resided in the Bronx, is without merit under the circumstances. We note that plaintiffs never cross-moved to retain venue in Bronx County or to transfer venue to an alternative county (see e.g. Montilla v River Park Assoc., 282 AD2d 389 [2001]; cf. Buterbaugh v Del Pesce, 160 AD2d 584 [1990]).
We have considered plaintiffs’ other arguments and find them without merit. Concur—Andrias, J.P., Friedman, Marlow, Nardelli and Sweeny, JJ.