MEJIA v. NANNI

Citation Codes

Equivalent Citations

citation codes

Docket Number

1541N

Attorney(S)

David Holmes, for defendants-appellants.

Judges

Angela M. Mazzarelli
David B. Saxe
David Friedman

See more information ...

Smart Summary

Factual and Procedural Background

The subject motor vehicle accident occurred in Westchester County, where plaintiffs reside. The police accident report indicated defendant wife (the driver) and automobile registration/insurance information identified a Westchester County address for defendant husband. Plaintiffs commenced the action in Bronx County, asserting defendant husband resided at a Bronx address. Defendants moved to change venue to Westchester County based on the police report; plaintiffs opposed with undated telephone directory listings for a person of the same name at a Bronx address. The initial motion was denied because defendant husband submitted no affidavit or documentary evidence establishing Westchester residency. Defendants did not appeal the initial denial but made a subsequent motion (denominated reargument) submitting affidavits and Con Edison and AT&T invoices addressed to the defendants in Westchester County; defendant husband explained his late father (same name) had formerly lived at the Bronx address. The IAS court denied the second motion as untimely if treated as reargument and, if treated as renewal, denied it for lack of any excuse for failing to present the newly submitted evidence earlier. The Appellate Division reversed, granted the motion for renewal, and, upon renewal, granted the change of venue to Westchester County.

Legal Issues Presented

Whether the defendants' second motion, denominated as one for reargument, should properly be treated as a motion for renewal because it relied on evidence not presented on the prior motion.
Whether a renewal motion that relies on evidence not previously submitted may be granted despite the general CPLR 2221(e) requirement that renewal be based on newly discovered facts or an excuse for not offering the evidence earlier.
Whether, on the record presented, a change of venue to Westchester County is warranted.

Arguments of the Parties

Defendants' Arguments

Initial motion: venue should be changed to Westchester County based on the police accident report indicating Westchester residency.
Second motion (renewal): submitted affidavits attesting to defendants' residence in Westchester County and utility invoices addressed to them in Westchester County to support change of venue.
Explained that the Bronx telephone listing relied on by plaintiffs concerned defendant husband's late father with the same name.

Plaintiffs' Arguments

Opposed the initial venue motion by submitting undated telephone directory listings showing an individual of the same name as defendant husband at a Bronx address to support venue in Bronx County.

Table of Precedents Cited

Precedent	Rule or Principle Cited For	Application by the Court
Daniels v. City of New York, 291 A.D.2d 260	Illustrates that courts have discretion to relax the CPLR 2221(e) requirement and grant a renewal motion in the interest of justice.	Invoked to support exercising discretion to grant renewal despite the absence of an excuse for not presenting the evidence on the prior motion.
Strong v. Brookhaven Mem. Hosp. Med Ctr., 240 A.D.2d 726	Same principle: courts may relax CPLR 2221(e)'s strict requirement for newly discovered facts and grant renewal in the interest of justice.	Used as additional authority for exercising discretion to grant the renewal motion and thereby permit consideration of the submitted residency evidence.

Court's Reasoning and Analysis

The court agreed the second motion was properly characterized as a motion for renewal because it relied on evidence not presented on the prior motion (defendants' affidavits and utility invoices showing the Westchester address). It noted the general rule that renewal motions should be based on newly discovered facts that could not have been offered on the prior motion (CPLR 2221[e]), but recognized established authority permitting courts to relax that requirement and grant renewal in the interest of justice (citing Daniels and Strong). Although the IAS court had denied the second motion as untimely if treated as reargument and, as renewal, for lack of an excuse for not submitting the evidence earlier, the Appellate Division exercised its discretion to relax the renewal requirement on this record. Finding that the only competent evidence showed both defendants resided in Westchester County, the court concluded it was appropriate to reverse the denial, grant renewal, and direct a change of venue to Westchester County.

Holding and Implications

REVERSED; the motion for renewal is granted, and upon renewal the motion to change venue is granted.

Consequences: The order denying defendants' renewal/reargument motion is reversed, and the action is to be transferred to Westchester County. The opinion applies existing discretion under CPLR 2221(e) and cited case law to permit renewal despite the previously submitted evidence; it does not announce a new broad rule beyond the exercise of discretion in this case.

Show full summary ...

JAMES MEJIA, ET AL., Plaintiffs-Respondents, v. VINCENT A. NANNI, ET AL., Defendants-Appellants.

The subject motor vehicle accident occurred in Westchester County, where plaintiffs reside. According to the police accident report, defendant wife, who had been the driver in the incident, told the investigating officer that she lived at an address in Westchester County, and the automobile's registration and insurance information disclosed that defendant husband lived at the same address in Westchester County. Nonetheless, plaintiffs brought this action in Bronx County, purportedly because defendant husband resided at an address in the Bronx. When defendants initially moved to change venue to Westchester County based solely on the police accident report, plaintiffs opposed the motion by submitting undated telephone directory listings for an individual with the same name as defendant husband at a Bronx address. The initial motion to change venue was denied on the ground that defendant husband failed to submit any affidavit or documentary evidence establishing his residence in Westchester County.

Defendants evidently did not appeal from the denial of their initial venue motion. They did, however, make a motion purporting to seek reargument, in support of which they submitted affidavits attesting to their residence in Westchester County at all relevant times, as well as invoices from Con Edison and AT T addressed to them in Westchester County. Defendant husband explained that his late father, who had the same name, had formerly lived at the Bronx County address set forth in the telephone directory listings submitted by plaintiffs. The IAS court denied the second motion as well, noting that it was untimely if treated as a motion for reargument (since served outside the time limit of CPLR 2221[d][3]). The IAS court further noted that, if the motion was treated as one for renewal, "as it really is," it could not be granted because defendants suggested no excuse for their failure to offer the newly submitted evidence in support of the initial motion.

We reverse and grant the change of venue. We agree with the IAS court that defendants' second motion, denominated as one for reargument, was actually a motion for renewal, since it was based on evidence not presented on the prior motion, i.e., defendants' affidavits and the invoices addressed to their Westchester County address. Although renewal motions generally should be based on newly discovered facts that could not be offered on the prior motion (see CPLR 2221[e]), courts have discretion to relax this requirement and to grant such a motion in the interest of justice (see e.g. Daniels v. City of New York, 291 A.D.2d 260; Strong v. Brookhaven Mem. Hosp. Med Ctr., 240 A.D.2d 726). On this record, in which the only competent evidence is that both defendants reside in Westchester County, we deem it appropriate to reverse and grant renewal of the motion to change venue in the exercise of our discretion, and thereupon direct a change of venue.

THIS CONSTITUTES THE DECISION AND ORDER OF THE SUPREME COURT, APPELLATE DIVISION, FIRST DEPARTMENT.