Goldberg v. Bierman

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Goldberg v. Bierman

35 A.D.3d 807, 830 N.Y.S.2d 165

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

DecidedDecember 26, 2006

StatusPublished

Cited by3 cases

This text of 35 A.D.3d 807 (Goldberg v. Bierman) 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

Goldberg v. Bierman, 35 A.D.3d 807, 830 N.Y.S.2d 165 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2006).

Pincite

Opinion

In an action to recover damages for medical malpractice and lack of informed consent, etc., the plaintiffs appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Agate, J.), dated December 22, 2005, which granted the defendants’ respective motions pursuant to CPLR 510 and 511 to transfer the venue of the action from Queens County to Nassau County.

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

The Supreme Court properly determined that the defendants [808]*808sufficiently established that they were residents of Nassau County rather than Queens County (see CPLR 503 [a], [d]), and that the alleged malpractice occurred in Nassau County. The plaintiffs failed to adequately rebut this showing in their opposition papers. Accordingly, the Supreme Court correctly granted the defendants’ respective motions to transfer the venue of the action to Nassau County (see CPLR 510 [1]; Magrone v Herzog, 304 AD2d 801 [2003]; Pasley v St. Agnes Hosp., 244 AD2d 469 [1997]). Crane, J.P., Santucci, Mastro and Lifson, 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 and lack of informed consent, etc., the plaintiffs appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Agate, J.), dated December 22, 2005, which granted the defendants’ respective motions pursuant to CPLR 510 and 511 to transfer the venue of the action from Queens County to Nassau County.

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

The Supreme Court properly determined that the defendants [808]*808sufficiently established that they were residents of Nassau County rather than Queens County (see CPLR 503 [a], [d]), and that the alleged malpractice occurred in Nassau County. The plaintiffs failed to adequately rebut this showing in their opposition papers. Accordingly, the Supreme Court correctly granted the defendants’ respective motions to transfer the venue of the action to Nassau County (see CPLR 510 [1]; Magrone v Herzog, 304 AD2d 801 [2003]; Pasley v St. Agnes Hosp., 244 AD2d 469 [1997]). Crane, J.P., Santucci, Mastro and Lifson, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

35 A.D.3d 807, 830 N.Y.S.2d 165, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/goldberg-v-bierman-nyappdiv-2006.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack