Magrone v. Herzog

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Magrone v. Herzog

304 A.D.2d 801, 757 N.Y.S.2d 866

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

DecidedApril 28, 2003

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 304 A.D.2d 801 (Magrone v. Herzog) 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

Magrone v. Herzog, 304 A.D.2d 801, 757 N.Y.S.2d 866 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2003).

Pincite

Opinion

In an action, inter alia, to recover damages for medical malpractice, etc., the plaintiffs appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Levine, J.), dated June 28, 2002, which granted the defendants’ separate motions to change venue of the action from Kings County to Richmond County.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.

The Supreme Court properly granted the defendants’ separate motions to change venue. The plaintiffs improperly placed the venue of this action in Kings County, based on the location of a medical office that the defendant David Michael Herzog maintained in that county. Although Herzog maintained a medical office in Kings County, the defendants established that Herzog maintained his principal medical office in Richmond [802]*802County, and that is where the alleged malpractice occurred (see CPLR 503 [d]; Castro-Recio v Rottenberg, 287 AD2d 532 [2001]; Shanahan v Klinginstein, 280 AD2d 464 [2001]). Since all of the parties also resided in Richmond County, the defendants are entitled to a change of venue (see CPLR 503 [a]; 510 [1]). Ritter, J.P., Feuerstein, McGinity, Townes and Cozier, JJ., concur.

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

In an action, inter alia, to recover damages for medical malpractice, etc., the plaintiffs appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Levine, J.), dated June 28, 2002, which granted the defendants’ separate motions to change venue of the action from Kings County to Richmond County.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.

The Supreme Court properly granted the defendants’ separate motions to change venue. The plaintiffs improperly placed the venue of this action in Kings County, based on the location of a medical office that the defendant David Michael Herzog maintained in that county. Although Herzog maintained a medical office in Kings County, the defendants established that Herzog maintained his principal medical office in Richmond [802]*802County, and that is where the alleged malpractice occurred (see CPLR 503 [d]; Castro-Recio v Rottenberg, 287 AD2d 532 [2001]; Shanahan v Klinginstein, 280 AD2d 464 [2001]). Since all of the parties also resided in Richmond County, the defendants are entitled to a change of venue (see CPLR 503 [a]; 510 [1]). Ritter, J.P., Feuerstein, McGinity, Townes and Cozier, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

304 A.D.2d 801, 757 N.Y.S.2d 866, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/magrone-v-herzog-nyappdiv-2003.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack