From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Magrone v. Herzog

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Apr 28, 2003
304 A.D.2d 801 (N.Y. App. Div. 2003)

Opinion

2002-06921

Submitted April 2, 2003.

April 28, 2003.

In an action, inter alia, to recover damages for medical malpractice, etc., the plaintiffs appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Levine, J.), dated June 28, 2002, which granted the defendants' separate motions to change venue of the action from Kings County to Richmond County.

Steven E. North, P.C., New York, N.Y. (Stephen D. Chakwin, Jr., of counsel), for appellants.

Heidell, Pittoni, Murphy Bach, LLP, New York, N.Y. (Daniel S. Ratner of counsel), for respondent St. Vincent's Medical Center of Richmond.

Before: DAVID S. RITTER, J.P., SANDRA J. FEUERSTEIN, LEO F. McGINITY, SANDRA L. TOWNES, BARRY A. COZIER, JJ.


DECISION ORDER

ORDERED that the order is affirmed, with costs.

The Supreme Court properly granted the defendants' separate motions to change venue. The plaintiffs improperly placed the venue of this action in Kings County, based on the location of a medical office that the defendant David Michael Herzog maintained in that county. Although Herzog maintained a medical office in Kings County, the defendants established that Herzog maintained his principal medical office in Richmond County, and that is where the alleged malpractice occurred (see CPLR 503[d]; Castro-Recio v. Rottenberg, 287 A.D.2d 532; Shanahan v. Klinginstein, 280 A.D.2d 464). Since all of the parties also resided in Richmond County, the defendants are entitled to a change of venue (see CPLR 503[a], 510).

RITTER, J.P., FEUERSTEIN, McGINITY, TOWNES and COZIER, JJ., concur.


Summaries of

Magrone v. Herzog

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Apr 28, 2003
304 A.D.2d 801 (N.Y. App. Div. 2003)
Case details for

Magrone v. Herzog

Case Details

Full title:TYLER MAGRONE, ETC., ET AL., appellants, v. DAVID MICHAEL HERZOG, ET AL.…

Court:Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department

Date published: Apr 28, 2003

Citations

304 A.D.2d 801 (N.Y. App. Div. 2003)
757 N.Y.S.2d 866

Citing Cases

Goldberg v. Bierman

The Supreme Court properly determined that the defendants sufficiently established that they were residents…

DiCicco v. Cattani

Before: Buckley, P.J., Mazzarelli, Sullivan, Friedman, Gonzalez, JJ. The motion was properly granted on the…