Learn About the Law
Get help with your legal needs
FindLaw’s Learn About the Law features thousands of informational articles to help you understand your options. And if you’re ready to hire an attorney, find one in your area who can help.
LAWRENCE D. SEGUIN AND KATHLEEN M. SEGUIN, PLAINTIFFS–RESPONDENTS, v. MATTHEW J. LANDFRIED, M.D., GENESEE ORTHOPAEDICS AND SPORTS MEDICINE, LLP, VALERIE S. THOMAS, P.A., PETER T. JANES, M.D., DEBRA M. OMIATEK, M.D., JOHN A. BRACH, M.D., MICHAEL D. MERRILL, M.D., JOSEPH V. OTTEN, M.D., UNITED MEMORIAL MEDICAL CENTER, DEFENDANTS–APPELLANTS, ET AL., DEFENDANTS.
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
It is hereby ORDERED that the order so appealed from is unanimously reversed in the exercise of discretion without costs and the motions are granted.
Memorandum: We agree with defendants-appellants (defendants) that Supreme Court improvidently exercised its discretion in denying their respective motions pursuant to CPLR 510(3) seeking to change the venue of this medical malpractice action from Erie County to Genesee County (see Costello v. Forbes, 294 A.D.2d 856). In support of their motions, defendants provided, inter alia, the physicians' affirmations and nurses' affidavits of 14 nonparty witnesses who treated Lawrence D. Seguin (plaintiff) at defendant United Memorial Medical Center in Genesee County and at Strong Memorial Hospital in Monroe County. The nonparty witnesses stated the nature of their treatment of plaintiff and their respective reasons for the inconvenience of traveling from their respective homes or places of work to Erie County (see McLaughlin v. City of Buffalo, 259 A.D.2d 1014, 1015; cf. Rochester Drug Coop., Inc. v Marcott Pharmacy N. Corp., 15 AD3d 899). Plaintiff Kathleen M. Seguin, who has asserted a derivative cause of action, moved to Erie County several months following plaintiff's treatment and it is upon the basis of her residence that the action was commenced in Erie County. Plaintiffs have “failed to demonstrate any other consideration that would favor [Erie] County as the proper venue of this action” (McLaughlin, 259 A.D.2d at 1015; see Costello, 294 A.D.2d at 856–857). We therefore conclude that defendants established that “the convenience of material witnesses and the ends of justice will be promoted by the change” of venue (CPLR 510[3]; cf. 1093 Group, LLC v. Canale, 72 AD3d 1561, 1562).
Frances E. Cafarell
Clerk of the Court
Thank you for your feedback!
As the largest network of trusted legal brands, we help firms build authority across the platforms consumers and AI systems rely on most. Our network helps attorneys strengthen visibility, credibility, and preference where legal decisions begin.
Docket No: CA 11–02552
Decided: June 08, 2012
Court: Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Fourth Department, New York.
Search our directory by legal issue
Enter information in one or both fields (Required)
Harness the power of our directory with your own profile. Select the button below to sign up.
Learn more about FindLaw’s newsletters, including our terms of use and privacy policy.
Get help with your legal needs
FindLaw’s Learn About the Law features thousands of informational articles to help you understand your options. And if you’re ready to hire an attorney, find one in your area who can help.
Search our directory by legal issue
Enter information in one or both fields (Required)