venue selection clause in New York

2025A demand to change venue is not a prerequisite to a motion brought pursuant to CPLR 501 to enforce a venue selection clause in an admission agreement between a nursing home and a patient ( Medina v Gold Crest Care Ctr., Inc., 117 AD3d 633 [1st Dept 2014]).

2023Hendricks v Wayne Ctr. for Nursing & Rehabilitation, 194 AD3d 648 [1st Dept 2021] [Supreme Court should have granted the defendant's motion to change the venue of the action from Bronx County to Westchester County; the defendant established that the admission agreement signed by the plaintiff's designated representative on her behalf to secure her admission to its nursing home had a forum-selection clause]; Martin v Workmen's Circle Multicare Ctr ., 171 AD3d 490 [1st Dept 2019] [the motion court properly applied the venue selection clause transferring venue from Bronx to Nassau County; no evid

2023Hendricks v Wayne Ctr. for Nursing & Rehabilitation, 194 AD3d 648 [1st Dept 2021] [Supreme Court should have granted the defendant's motion to change the venue of the action from Bronx County to Westchester County; the defendant established that the admission agreement signed by the plaintiff's designated representative on her behalf to secure her admission to its nursing home had a forum-selection clause]; Martin v Workmen's Circle Multicare Ctr ., 171 AD3d 490 [1st Dept 2019] [the motion court properly applied the venue selection clause transferring venue from Bronx to Nassau County; no evid

2021Nothing in the record support's plaintiff's contention that the clause resulted from fraud or overreaching, nor did plaintiff make any showing as to how she would be deprived of her day in court by a transfer of venue from Bronx to Westchester County ( see Hendricks, 194 AD3d at 649 ; Martin v Workmen's Circle Multicare Ctr. , 171 AD3d 490 [1st Dept 2019]).THIS CONSTITUTES THE DECISION AND ORDER OF THE SUPREME COURT, APPELLATE DIVISION, FIRST DEPARTMENT.

2021Plaintiff, as the party challenging the validity of the agreement's venue selection clause, had the burden to show why it should not be enforced ( see Braverman v Yelp, Inc. , 128 AD3d 568 [1st Dept 2015], lv denied 26 NY3d 902 [2015]).

2021Plaintiff, as the party challenging the validity of the agreement's venue selection clause, had the burden to show why it should not be enforced ( see Braverman v Yelp, Inc. , 128 AD3d 568 [1st Dept 2015], lv denied 26 NY3d 902 [2015]).

2023Louis Basketball Club, L.P. v Denver Nuggets, Inc. , 84 AD3d 454, 455 [1st Dept 2011], lv denied 17 NY3d 710 [2011]; see Highland Crusader Offshore Partners, L.P. v Targeted Delivery Tech.

2020However, defendant waited almost two years after the action was commenced before seeking a change of venue, and provided no reasonable explanation for the delay ( see Sade San A Jong v Lesense , 114 AD3d 624 [1st Dept 2014]; Mena v Four Wheels Co. , 272 AD2d 223 [1st Dept 2000]).

2020However, defendant waited almost two years after the action was commenced before seeking a change of venue, and provided no reasonable explanation for the delay ( see Sade San A Jong v Lesense , 114 AD3d 624 [1st Dept 2014]; Mena v Four Wheels Co. , 272 AD2d 223 [1st Dept 2000]).

2007Co. ( 338 US 263 [1949]), however, the Supreme Court gave a broad reading to section 5 of the FELA, holding that an agreement limiting an employee’s choice of forum to a state or federal court in Michigan was void, on the theory that being subject to suit in a court of the employee’s choice was part of the “liability created.” Schreiber argues that the arbitration clause here is similar to the venue-selection clause in Boyd , since both clauses limit litigation to a particular forum.

2004Hunt v. Landers , 309 A.D.2d 900 (2nd Dept., 2003); and Hirschman v. National Textbook Company , 184 A.D.2d 494 (2nd Dept., 1992).

2004Hunt v. Landers , 309 A.D.2d 900 (2nd Dept., 2003); and Hirschman v. National Textbook Company , 184 A.D.2d 494 (2nd Dept., 1992).