Guerrero v. New York City Health & Hospitals Corp.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Guerrero v. New York City Health & Hospitals Corp.

269 A.D.2d 184, 703 N.Y.S.2d 93, 2000 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 1138

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York·Decided February 8, 2000·Published

Opinion

—Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Lorraine Miller, J.), entered December 15, 1998, which, in an action for medical malpractice, inter alia, denied defendant-appellant doctor’s motion to change of venue from Bronx County to New York County, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

The motion was properly denied upon a record in which appellant failed to identify a single witness whose convenience would be better served by the proposed change of venue. Rather, appellant is, in essence, asking the court to assume that unidentified employees of the hospital in upper Manhattan where the alleged malpractice occurred would find it more convenient to travel to lower Manhattan than the Bronx. Suffice it to say that such an assumption may not substitute for the particularized showing necessary to justify a change of venue on the ground of witness convenience, and, moreover, is dubious at best (see, Cardona v Aggressive Heating, 180 AD2d 572; Heinemann v Grunfeld, 224 AD2d 204). Concur — Rosenberger, J. P., Ellerin, Wallach and Saxe, JJ.

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

—Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Lorraine Miller, J.), entered December 15, 1998, which, in an action for medical malpractice, inter alia, denied defendant-appellant doctor’s motion to change of venue from Bronx County to New York County, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

The motion was properly denied upon a record in which appellant failed to identify a single witness whose convenience would be better served by the proposed change of venue. Rather, appellant is, in essence, asking the court to assume that unidentified employees of the hospital in upper Manhattan where the alleged malpractice occurred would find it more convenient to travel to lower Manhattan than the Bronx. Suffice it to say that such an assumption may not substitute for the particularized showing necessary to justify a change of venue on the ground of witness convenience, and, moreover, is dubious at best (see, Cardona v Aggressive Heating, 180 AD2d 572; Heinemann v Grunfeld, 224 AD2d 204). Concur — Rosenberger, J. P., Ellerin, Wallach and Saxe, JJ.

Guerrero v. New York City Health & Hospitals Corp., 269 A.D.2d 184, 703 N.Y.S.2d 93, 2000 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 1138 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2000).

Pincite

269 A.D.2d 184 (Guerrero v. New York City Health & Hospitals Corp.) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related