FindLaw

Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Second Department, New York.

ResetAA Font size: Print

APPEL v. DUMONT MASONIC NURSING HOME

Walter APPEL, et al., respondents, v. DUMONT MASONIC NURSING HOME, appellant, et al., defendant.

-- January 29, 2008

ROBERT A. SPOLZINO, J.P., PETER B. SKELOS, ROBERT A. LIFSON, and WILLIAM E. McCARTHY, JJ.

Kaufman Borgeest & Ryan, LLP, Valhalla, N.Y. (Jacqueline Mandell and Dennis J. Dozis of counsel), for appellant.Grace & Grace, Yorktown Heights, N.Y. (Michael J. Grace of counsel), for respondents.

In an action to recover damages for medical malpractice, etc., the defendant Dumont Masonic Nursing Home appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County (F. Rivera, J.), dated July 13, 2007, which denied its motion to change the venue of the action from Kings County to Westchester County.

ORDERED that the order is reversed, on the facts and in the exercise of discretion, with costs, the motion to change venue of the action from Kings County to Westchester County is granted, and the Clerk of the Supreme Court, Kings County, is directed to deliver to the Clerk of the Supreme Court, Westchester County, all papers filed in the action and certified copies of all minutes and entries (see CPLR 511[d] ).

In an order dated February 9, 2007, the Supreme Court, Kings County, granted the motion of the defendant Metrocare Ambulance Corporation for summary judgment dismissing the complaint insofar as asserted against it.   In light of, inter alia, the fact that Metrocare Ambulance Corporation was the only party residing in Kings County, and that the action has no other connection to Kings County, the appellant's motion to change the venue of the action to Westchester County, where the plaintiffs reside, should have been granted (see Fernandez v. NYLCare Health Plans, Inc., 276 A.D.2d 268, 269, 714 N.Y.S.2d 198;  Ming-Liang Philip Chung v. Express Tours, Inc., 274 A.D.2d 506, 715 N.Y.S.2d 417;  Yasin v. Manhattan Eye, Ear & Throat Hosp., 254 A.D.2d 281, 283, 678 N.Y.S.2d 112;  Tamburro v. Int'l Business Machines Corp., 234 A.D.2d 535, 536, 651 N.Y.S.2d 918;  Mitts v. HIP of Greater New York, 104 A.D.2d 318, 319, 478 N.Y.S.2d 910).

FindLaw Career Center


      Post a Job  |  View More Jobs

    View More