DiCicco v. Cattani

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

DiCicco v. Cattani

5 A.D.3d 318, 773 N.Y.S.2d 558, 2004 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3515

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

DecidedMarch 30, 2004

StatusPublished

Cited by4 cases

This text of 5 A.D.3d 318 (DiCicco v. Cattani) 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

DiCicco v. Cattani, 5 A.D.3d 318, 773 N.Y.S.2d 558, 2004 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3515 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2004).

Pincite

Opinion

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Sheila Abdus-Salaam, J.), entered March 10, 2003, which, in an action for medical malpractice, granted defendant’s motion to change venue to Richmond County, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

The motion was properly granted on the ground that defendant’s affidavit sufficiently demonstrates that his principal office is located in Staten Island, where, we note, the alleged malpractice occurred (see Pasley v St. Agnes Hosp., 244 AD2d 469 [1997]; Magrone v Herzog, 304 AD2d 801 [2003]). It does not avail plaintiff that defendant’s letterhead and Web site list his Manhattan address first, or that other medical-related Web sites, including the New York State Directory of Physicians, provide only the Manhattan address (cf. Kielczewski v Pinnacle Restoration Corp., 226 AD2d 211 [1996]). Concur—Buckley, P.J., Mazzarelli, Sullivan, Friedman and Gonzalez, JJ.

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

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Sheila Abdus-Salaam, J.), entered March 10, 2003, which, in an action for medical malpractice, granted defendant’s motion to change venue to Richmond County, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

The motion was properly granted on the ground that defendant’s affidavit sufficiently demonstrates that his principal office is located in Staten Island, where, we note, the alleged malpractice occurred (see Pasley v St. Agnes Hosp., 244 AD2d 469 [1997]; Magrone v Herzog, 304 AD2d 801 [2003]). It does not avail plaintiff that defendant’s letterhead and Web site list his Manhattan address first, or that other medical-related Web sites, including the New York State Directory of Physicians, provide only the Manhattan address (cf. Kielczewski v Pinnacle Restoration Corp., 226 AD2d 211 [1996]). Concur—Buckley, P.J., Mazzarelli, Sullivan, Friedman and Gonzalez, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

5 A.D.3d 318, 773 N.Y.S.2d 558, 2004 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3515, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/dicicco-v-cattani-nyappdiv-2004.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack