LaMantia v. North Shore University Hospital

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

LaMantia v. North Shore University Hospital

259 A.D.2d 294, 686 N.Y.S.2d 416, 1999 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 2394

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

DecidedMarch 9, 1999

StatusPublished

Cited by3 cases

This text of 259 A.D.2d 294 (LaMantia v. North Shore University Hospital) 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

LaMantia v. North Shore University Hospital, 259 A.D.2d 294, 686 N.Y.S.2d 416, 1999 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 2394 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1999).

Pincite

Opinion

—Order, Supreme Court, Bronx County (George Friedman, J.), entered December 22, 1997, which, inter alia, denied the motion of defendant-appellant to change venue from Bronx County to Nassau County, unanimously reversed, on the law, the facts and in the exercise of discretion, without costs, and the motion granted.

As a general matter, strict compliance with the time requirements set forth in CPLR 511 (a) and (b) is required when defendants allege that venue was improperly placed (see, Pittman v Maher, 202 AD2d 172; Rosenthal v Bologna, 211 AD2d 436). Nevertheless, noncompliance should be excused where it was caused by “plaintiff’s willful omissions and misleading statements” so long as defendant moves promptly after ascertaining plaintiff’s residence (Philogene v Fuller Auto Leasing, 167 AD2d 178, 179). Here, in light of the repeated erroneous assertion in papers submitted by plaintiff that she resided in Bronx County, and defendant’s prompt motion seeking a change in venue upon learning that her residence was actually in Westchester County, we find that defendant’s motion was timely made. Upon consideration of that motion, which seeks transfer of venue to Nassau County, where the cause of action accrued, we find that it should be granted. Concur — Ellerin, P. J., Sullivan, Williams and Wallach, JJ.

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

—Order, Supreme Court, Bronx County (George Friedman, J.), entered December 22, 1997, which, inter alia, denied the motion of defendant-appellant to change venue from Bronx County to Nassau County, unanimously reversed, on the law, the facts and in the exercise of discretion, without costs, and the motion granted.

As a general matter, strict compliance with the time requirements set forth in CPLR 511 (a) and (b) is required when defendants allege that venue was improperly placed (see, Pittman v Maher, 202 AD2d 172; Rosenthal v Bologna, 211 AD2d 436). Nevertheless, noncompliance should be excused where it was caused by “plaintiff’s willful omissions and misleading statements” so long as defendant moves promptly after ascertaining plaintiff’s residence (Philogene v Fuller Auto Leasing, 167 AD2d 178, 179). Here, in light of the repeated erroneous assertion in papers submitted by plaintiff that she resided in Bronx County, and defendant’s prompt motion seeking a change in venue upon learning that her residence was actually in Westchester County, we find that defendant’s motion was timely made. Upon consideration of that motion, which seeks transfer of venue to Nassau County, where the cause of action accrued, we find that it should be granted. Concur — Ellerin, P. J., Sullivan, Williams and Wallach, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

259 A.D.2d 294, 686 N.Y.S.2d 416, 1999 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 2394, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/lamantia-v-north-shore-university-hospital-nyappdiv-1999.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack