Doyle v. Berley

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Doyle v. Berley

215 A.D.2d 349, 625 N.Y.S.2d 651, 1995 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4747

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

DecidedMay 1, 1995

StatusPublished

This text of 215 A.D.2d 349 (Doyle v. Berley) 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

Doyle v. Berley, 215 A.D.2d 349, 625 N.Y.S.2d 651, 1995 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4747 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1995).

Pincite

Opinion

In an action to recover damages for medical malpractice, the plaintiff appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Nassau County (Molloy, J.), dated October 15, 1993, which granted a motion and cross motion for a change of venue.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, with one bill of costs to the respondents appearing separately and filing separate briefs.

We agree with the Supreme Court that the occasional use by the defendant Bruce Flashner, of an apartment in New York County, a use which is connected with his monthly business trips to New York from his home in Illinois, does not

[350]*350render Dr. Flashner a resident of New York County for venue purposes (see, CPLR 503 [a]; Katz v Siroty, 62 AD2d 1011; Hammerman v Louis Watch Co., 7 AD2d 817; Oelkers v Hulseberg, 200 Misc 352, affd 279 App Div 669). Bracken, J. P., O’Brien, Santucci and Florio, 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 plaintiff appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Nassau County (Molloy, J.), dated October 15, 1993, which granted a motion and cross motion for a change of venue.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, with one bill of costs to the respondents appearing separately and filing separate briefs.

We agree with the Supreme Court that the occasional use by the defendant Bruce Flashner, of an apartment in New York County, a use which is connected with his monthly business trips to New York from his home in Illinois, does not

[350]*350render Dr. Flashner a resident of New York County for venue purposes (see, CPLR 503 [a]; Katz v Siroty, 62 AD2d 1011; Hammerman v Louis Watch Co., 7 AD2d 817; Oelkers v Hulseberg, 200 Misc 352, affd 279 App Div 669). Bracken, J. P., O’Brien, Santucci and Florio, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

215 A.D.2d 349, 625 N.Y.S.2d 651, 1995 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4747, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/doyle-v-berley-nyappdiv-1995.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack