Biolsi v. St. Charles Hospital

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Biolsi v. St. Charles Hospital

210 A.D.2d 448, 620 N.Y.S.2d 997, 1994 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 13174

CourtAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York

DecidedDecember 27, 1994

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 210 A.D.2d 448 (Biolsi v. St. Charles Hospital) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Biolsi v. St. Charles Hospital, 210 A.D.2d 448, 620 N.Y.S.2d 997, 1994 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 13174 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1994).

Pincite

Opinion

—In an action to recover damages for medical malpractice, the defendants appeal from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Clemente, J.), dated December 2, 1993, as denied.their separate motions to transfer venue of this action from Kings County to Suffolk County.

Ordered that the order is affirmed insofar as appealed from, with one bill of costs.

Since the plaintiff resided in Kings County at the time that the present action was commenced, she properly designated Kings County as the place for trial in accordance with CPLR 503 (a). In support of their motions to change venue based upon convenience of material witnesses and the ends of justice pursuant to CPLR 510 (3), the defendants were required to supply the names, addresses, and occupations of the witnesses whose convenience they claim will be affected; indicate that the prospective witnesses have been contacted and are willing [449]*449to testify on their behalf; and specify the substance of each witness’s testimony, which must be necessary and material upon the trial of the action (see, Jansen v Bernhang, 149 AD2d 468, 469; Bolling v Metropolitan Suburban Bus Auth., 205 AD2d 724). Since the defendants failed to set forth the specific information required with regard to the potential witnesses, the court properly denied the defendants’ motions to transfer venue from Kings County to Suffolk County. Thompson, J. P., Miller, O’Brien, Santucci and Joy, JJ., concur.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

—In an action to recover damages for medical malpractice, the defendants appeal from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Clemente, J.), dated December 2, 1993, as denied.their separate motions to transfer venue of this action from Kings County to Suffolk County.

Ordered that the order is affirmed insofar as appealed from, with one bill of costs.

Since the plaintiff resided in Kings County at the time that the present action was commenced, she properly designated Kings County as the place for trial in accordance with CPLR 503 (a). In support of their motions to change venue based upon convenience of material witnesses and the ends of justice pursuant to CPLR 510 (3), the defendants were required to supply the names, addresses, and occupations of the witnesses whose convenience they claim will be affected; indicate that the prospective witnesses have been contacted and are willing [449]*449to testify on their behalf; and specify the substance of each witness’s testimony, which must be necessary and material upon the trial of the action (see, Jansen v Bernhang, 149 AD2d 468, 469; Bolling v Metropolitan Suburban Bus Auth., 205 AD2d 724). Since the defendants failed to set forth the specific information required with regard to the potential witnesses, the court properly denied the defendants’ motions to transfer venue from Kings County to Suffolk County. Thompson, J. P., Miller, O’Brien, Santucci and Joy, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

210 A.D.2d 448, 620 N.Y.S.2d 997, 1994 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 13174, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/biolsi-v-st-charles-hospital-nyappdiv-1994.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack