Schaefer v. Schwartz, 226 A.D.2d 619 (N.Y. App. Div. 1996). · Go Syfert
Search
Schaefer v. Schwartz, 226 A.D.2d 619 (N.Y. App. Div. 1996). Cases Citing This Book View Copy Cite
G Cite
cited 2× by 2 distinct cases, last quoted 1999 · …for venue purposes, a residence is where a party stays for some time with a bona fide intent to retain the place as a residence for some length of time and with some degree of permanency ✓
12 citation events (8 in the last 25 years) across 1 distinct court.
Strongest positive: Kelly v. Karsenty (nyappdiv, 2014-05-21)
Top citers, strongest first. 5 distinct citers. How cited ↗
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Kelly v. Karsenty
N.Y. App. Div. · 2014 · confidence medium
These documents were sufficient to establish that, at the time of the commencement of the action, the plaintiff had a bona fide intent to retain an additional residence in Queens with some degree of permanency (see Ellis v Wirshba, 18 AD3d 805 [2005]; Schaefer v Schwartz, 226 AD2d 619, 620 [1996]; Martinez v Hudson Armored Car & Courier, 201 AD2d 359 [1994]; cf. Maggio v Wal-Mart Stores, 275 AD2d 350, 351 [2000]; Martinez v Semicevic, 178 AD2d 228 [1991]).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Kelly v. Karsenty
N.Y. App. Div. · 2014 · confidence medium
These documents were sufficient to establish that, at the time of the commencement of the action, the plaintiff had a bona fide intent to retain an additional residence in Queens with some degree of permanency (see Ellis v Wirshba, 18 AD3d 805 [2005]; Schaefer v Schwartz, 226 AD2d 619, 620 [1996]; Martinez v Hudson Armored Car & Courier, 201 AD2d 359 [1994]; cf. Maggio v Wal-Mart Stores, 275 AD2d 350, 351 [2000]; Martinez v Semicevic, 178 AD2d 228 [1991]).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Deazle v. Miles
N.Y. App. Div. · 2010 · confidence medium
An individual may establish his or her residency with documentary evidence, such as a lease, rent receipts, phone bill, utility bills, voter’s registration card, or driver’s license (see Ellis v Wirshba, 18 AD 3d 805, 805 [2005]; Schaefer v Schwartz, 226 AD2d 619, 620 [1996]; McKenzie v MAJ Tr., 204 AD2d 154 [1994]).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Ellis v. Wirshba
N.Y. App. Div. · 2005 · confidence medium
The plaintiffs’ affidavits and the annexed copies of the sublease and contract for the sale of a cooperative apartment, utility bill, stock certificate, and liability insurance sufficiently established the plaintiffs’ bona fide intent to retain New York County as their residence with some degree of permanency at the time of the commencement of the action (see Schaefer v Schwartz, 226 AD2d 619, 620 [1996]; Martinez v Hudson Armored Car & Courier, 201 AD2d 359 [1994]; cf. Gladstone v Syvertson, 186 AD2d 400 [1992]; Martinez v Semicevic, 178 AD2d 228 [1991]).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Bergman v. Fiel
N.Y. App. Div. · 2004 · confidence medium
The defendant’s documentary evidence established that he had been residing in New York County for at least one year prior to the commencement of this action (see Schaefer v Schwartz, 226 AD2d 619, 620 [1996]; cf. Merendino v Lloyd, 172 AD2d 594, 595 [1991]).
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
Michael E. Schaefer
v.
Barry F. Schwartz
Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York.
Apr 22, 1996.
226 A.D.2d 619
1996 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4457
Cited by 12 opinions  |  Published

In an action, inter alia, to[*620] recover damages for medical malpractice, the defendants separately appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Nassau County (Murphy, J.), entered July 5, 1995, which denied their motion to change venue from Bronx County to Nassau County.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, without costs or disbursements.

We reject the defendants’ contention that the plaintiff failed to establish residency in Bronx County for the purpose of establishing venue in that county (see, CPLR 503 [a]). For venue purposes, a residence is where a party stays for some time with a bona fide intent to retain the place as a residence for some length of time and with some degree of permanency (see, Sibrizzi v Mount Tom Day School, 155 AD2d 337; Mandelbaum v Mandelbaum, 151 AD2d 727; Siegfried v Siegfried, 92 AD2d 916). The plaintiff’s affidavit and the annexed lease, rent receipts, and phone bills sufficiently establish all of the necessary indicia of residency. The defendants’ evidence to the contrary is unpersuasive, and their contention that the Supreme Court should have conducted a hearing on the matter is without merit.

In addition, the Supreme Court did not improvidently exercise its discretion in denying the defendants’ motion to change venue based on the convenience of material witnesses (see, CPLR 510 [3]; O’Brien v Vassar Bros. Hosp., 207 AD2d 169). Mangano, P. J., Thompson, Florio and McGinity, JJ., concur.