Joseph v. Agnant

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Joseph v. Agnant

262 A.D.2d 226, 693 N.Y.S.2d 21, 1999 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 7431

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

DecidedJune 24, 1999

StatusPublished

This text of 262 A.D.2d 226 (Joseph v. Agnant) 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

Joseph v. Agnant, 262 A.D.2d 226, 693 N.Y.S.2d 21, 1999 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 7431 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1999).

Pincite

Opinion

—Order, Supreme Court, Bronx County (Alan Saks, J.), entered January 19, 1999, which, in an action for medical malpractice, denied defendant physician’s motion pursuant to CPLR 510 (3) to change venue from Bronx County to Westchester County, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

The motion was properly denied for failure to demonstrate how the three nonparty physicians identified by defendant as prospective witnesses would be inconvenienced by a trial in Bronx County. On a motion such as this, little, if any, consideration is to be given to the convenience of employees of defendant hospital (see, Herrera v St. Luke’s/Roosevelt Hosp. Ctr., 224 AD2d 323; Barbot v Nagabushana, 235 AD2d 289). In any event, the motion was untimely (CPLR 511 [a]; see, Schwarz v Erpf Estate, 232 AD2d 316). Concur — Ellerin, P. J., Rosenberger, Buckley and Friedman, JJ.

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

—Order, Supreme Court, Bronx County (Alan Saks, J.), entered January 19, 1999, which, in an action for medical malpractice, denied defendant physician’s motion pursuant to CPLR 510 (3) to change venue from Bronx County to Westchester County, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

The motion was properly denied for failure to demonstrate how the three nonparty physicians identified by defendant as prospective witnesses would be inconvenienced by a trial in Bronx County. On a motion such as this, little, if any, consideration is to be given to the convenience of employees of defendant hospital (see, Herrera v St. Luke’s/Roosevelt Hosp. Ctr., 224 AD2d 323; Barbot v Nagabushana, 235 AD2d 289). In any event, the motion was untimely (CPLR 511 [a]; see, Schwarz v Erpf Estate, 232 AD2d 316). Concur — Ellerin, P. J., Rosenberger, Buckley and Friedman, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

262 A.D.2d 226, 693 N.Y.S.2d 21, 1999 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 7431, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/joseph-v-agnant-nyappdiv-1999.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack