From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Wilk v. Perillo Bros. Fuel Oil Corp.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
May 21, 1984
101 A.D.2d 859 (N.Y. App. Div. 1984)

Opinion

May 21, 1984


Plaintiff, in action No. 2, appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Suffolk County (Cannavo, J.), dated October 6, 1983, which granted a motion by the defendants in actions Nos. 1 and 2 for a change of venue of action No. 2 from Queens County to Suffolk County, and a joint trial with action No. 1 pending in Suffolk County. ¶ Order modified by deleting so much thereof as directed the removal of action No. 2 to Suffolk County, and by substituting therefor a provision directing that action No. 1 be removed from Suffolk County to Queens County, to be tried jointly with action No. 2 pending in Queens County. As so modified, order affirmed, with costs to the appellant. ¶ Under the circumstances, it was an improvident exercise of discretion to transfer venue of action No. 2 to Suffolk County and direct a joint trial in said county. All things being equal, where consolidation or joint trials of actions begun in different counties is to be had, the venue should be in the county where jurisdiction was first invoked ( Maccabee v Nangle, 33 A.D.2d 918). ¶ Since action No. 2 was first commenced, venue and trial of both actions should lie in Queens County. Gibbons, J.P., O'Connor, Boyers and Lawrence, JJ., concur.


Summaries of

Wilk v. Perillo Bros. Fuel Oil Corp.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
May 21, 1984
101 A.D.2d 859 (N.Y. App. Div. 1984)
Case details for

Wilk v. Perillo Bros. Fuel Oil Corp.

Case Details

Full title:THOMAS WILK, JR., et al., Plaintiffs, v. PERILLO BROS. FUEL OIL CORP. et…

Court:Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department

Date published: May 21, 1984

Citations

101 A.D.2d 859 (N.Y. App. Div. 1984)

Citing Cases

Public Serv Truck Renting v. Ambassador Ins. Co.

Public Service failed to list the names and addresses of the nonparty material witnesses expected to be…

Cruickshank v. Dukes

In our case, the only reason the Cruickshank action is now in Queens County is as a result of a Kings County…