Thomas v Orange Regional Med. Ctr.

Annotate this Case
Thomas v Orange Regional Med. Ctr. 2011 NY Slip Op 08974 Decided on December 13, 2011 Appellate Division, First Department Published by New York State Law Reporting Bureau pursuant to Judiciary Law ยง 431. This opinion is uncorrected and subject to revision before publication in the Official Reports.

Decided on December 13, 2011
Gonzalez, P.J., Friedman, Moskowitz, Acosta, Richter, JJ. 6308-
308252/08 6309N

[*1]Charmaine Thomas, as Administratrix of the Lost Goods, Chattels and Credits which were of the Estate of Rose Richards, etc., Plaintiff-Respondent,

v

Orange Regional Medical Center, et al., Defendants-Appellants, Crystal Run Healthcare, LLP, et al., Defendants.




Martin Clearwater & Bell LLP, New York (Stewart G. Milch
of counsel), for Orange Regional Medical Center, appellant.
Tarshis, Catania, Liberth, Mahon & Milligram, PLLC,
Newburgh (Rebecca Baldwin Mantello of counsel), for Radiologic
Associates, P.C., Lisa Fisher and Stephen Daly, appellants.
Irom, Wittels, Freund, Berne & Serra, P.C., Bronx (Richard W.
Berne of counsel), for respondent.

Order, Supreme Court, Bronx County (Robert E. Torres, J.), entered April 13, 2011, which, in this action alleging, inter alia, medical malpractice, denied defendants-appellants' motion to change venue from Bronx County to Orange County pursuant to CPLR 510(3), unanimously affirmed, without costs.

Defendants' moving papers were deficient since the addresses of the two proposed nonparty witnesses who would purportedly be inconvenienced by a trial in Bronx County were not provided. Nor was the nature and materiality of their anticipated testimony detailed (see Jacobs v Banks Shapiro Gettinger Waldinger & Brennan, LLP, 9 AD3d 299 [2004]; Nolan v [*2]Mount Vernon Hosp., 172 AD2d 368 [1991]).

We note however that, contrary to Supreme Court's finding, defendant's motion was not untimely.

THIS CONSTITUTES THE DECISION AND ORDER
OF THE SUPREME COURT, APPELLATE DIVISION, FIRST DEPARTMENT.

ENTERED: DECEMBER 13, 2011

CLERK

Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.