Summary
In Public Adm'r Bronx County v. Montefiore Medical Center, 93 AD3d 620 (1st Dept 2012), Puleo v. Shore View Center for Rehabilitation and Health Care, 132 AD2d 651, 652 (2d Dept 2015), and Medina v. Gold Crest Care Center, 117 AD3d 633 (1st Dept 2014), the enforcement of the forum selection clauses at issue was premised, in large part, upon the fact that the forum selection clauses had been unequivocally singed by a patient or a person proven to have been an authorized representative of the patient.
Summary of this case from Rodriguez v. Montefiore Med. Ctr.Opinion
2012-03-29
PUBLIC ADMINISTRATOR BRONX COUNTY, etc., Plaintiff–Appellant, v. MONTEFIORE MEDICAL CENTER, et al., Defendants–Respondents.
Sinel & Associates, PLLC, New York (Raymond E. Gazer of counsel), for appellant. Wilson Elser Moskowitz Edelman & Dicker LLP, White Plains (James S. Makris of counsel), for Montefiore Medical Center, respondent.
Sinel & Associates, PLLC, New York (Raymond E. Gazer of counsel), for appellant. Wilson Elser Moskowitz Edelman & Dicker LLP, White Plains (James S. Makris of counsel), for Montefiore Medical Center, respondent. Kaufman Borgeest & Ryan, LLP, New York (Dennis J. Dozis of counsel), for Morningside House Nursing Home, respondent.TOM, J.P., DeGRASSE, FREEDMAN, RICHTER, ROMÁN, JJ.
Order, Supreme Court, Bronx County (Douglas E. McKeon, J.), entered July 25, 2011, which, in this action to recover damages arising out of defendants' alleged negligence and medical malpractice while decedent was a patient at their facilities, granted defendant Morningside's motion and defendant Montefiore's cross motion to change venue from Bronx County to Westchester County, unanimously affirmed, without costs.
The forum selection clauses in the admission agreements at issue provide that “[a]ny and all actions arising out of or related to th[e] Agreement[s] shall be brought in ... Westchester County.” Because this action arises out of or relates to Morningside's duties and obligations under the agreements, the clauses apply and thus venue was properly transferred to Westchester County ( see Buhler v. French Woods Festival of Performing Arts, 154 A.D.2d 303, 546 N.Y.S.2d 591 [1989]; cf. De La Cruz v. Caddell Dry Dock & Repair Co., Inc., 56 A.D.3d 365, 366, 868 N.Y.S.2d 619 [2008] ). Plaintiff has failed to show that enforcement of the forum selection clauses would violate public policy or that a trial in Westchester County would be so impracticable and inconvenient that he would be deprived of his day in court ( see Bank Hapoalim (Switzerland) Ltd. v. Banca Intesa S.p.A., 26 A.D.3d 286, 288, 810 N.Y.S.2d 172 [2006]; cf. Yoshida v. PC Tech U.S.A. & You–Ri, Inc., 22 A.D.3d 373, 803 N.Y.S.2d 48 [2005] ). Moreover, there is no allegation that the agreements at issue were the result of fraud or overreaching ( cf. DeSola Group v. Coors Brewing Co., 199 A.D.2d 141, 141–142, 605 N.Y.S.2d 83 [1993] ). Although defendant Montefiore was not a party to the agreements, in order to avoid inconsistent verdicts, the entire action was properly transferred to Westchester County ( see Woodhouse v. Orangetown Pediatrics, 213 A.D.2d 362, 624 N.Y.S.2d 405 [1995] ).