Opinion
8928N Index 31815/17E
04-04-2019
Elaine MARTIN, individually and Elaine Martin as Administratrix of the Estate of Lloyd Martin, deceased, Plaintiff–Appellant, v. WORKMEN'S CIRCLE MULTICARE CENTER, et al., Defendants–Respondents, Tamara Erlikh, M.D., et al., Defendants.
Wallace & Associates, P.C., Brooklyn (Larry Wallace of counsel), for appellant. Sheeley LLP, New York (Gayle Halevy of counsel), for respondents.
Wallace & Associates, P.C., Brooklyn (Larry Wallace of counsel), for appellant.
Sheeley LLP, New York (Gayle Halevy of counsel), for respondents.
Friedman, J.P., Gische, Kapnick, Webber, Gesmer, JJ.
Order, Supreme Court, Bronx County (Joseph Capella, J.), entered September 10, 2018, which granted defendants-respondents' motion seeking a change of venue of the action from Bronx County to Nassau County, unanimously affirmed, without costs.
The motion court properly applied the venue selection clause in the admission agreement for defendants-respondents' nursing home and dialysis facility (see Medina v. Gold Crest Care Ctr., Inc., 117 A.D.3d 633, 988 N.Y.S.2d 578 [1st Dept. 2014] ; Public Adm'r Bronx County v. Montefiore Med. Ctr., 93 A.D.3d 620, 621, 941 N.Y.S.2d 104 [1st Dept. 2012] ; Puleo v. Shore View Ctr. for Rehabilitation & Health Care, 132 A.D.3d 651, 652, 17 N.Y.S.3d 501 [2d Dept. 2015] ). The motion court properly rejected plaintiff's conclusory assertions that the venue-selection clause violates public policy, New York State Department of Health Regulations and CPLR 501 (see Medina, 117 A.D.3d 633–634, 988 N.Y.S.2d 578 ). Further, there is no evidence of fraud or overreaching in the execution of the agreement (see British W. Indies Guar. Trust Co. v. Banque Internationale A Luxembourg, 172 A.D.2d 234, 567 N.Y.S.2d 731 [1st Dept. 1991] ). Nor was plaintiff denied her day in court by transferring venue from Bronx to Nassau County (see e.g. Bhonlay v. Raquette Lake Camps, Inc., 120 A.D.3d 1015, 991 N.Y.S.2d 765 [1st Dept. 2014] ; see also e.g. Public Adm'r Bronx County, 93 A.D.3d 620, 941 N.Y.S.2d 104 ).
We have considered plaintiff's remaining arguments and find them unavailing.