From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Brooks v. Lefrak

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, First Department
Dec 10, 1992
188 A.D.2d 360 (N.Y. App. Div. 1992)

Opinion

December 10, 1992

Appeal from the Supreme Court, Bronx County (Howard R. Silver, J.).


Motions to consolidate pursuant to CPLR 602 (a) are addressed to the sound discretion of the court, "subject to the general rule that, in the absence of special circumstances, where the actions have been commenced in different counties venue should be placed in the county having jurisdiction over the action first commenced" (T T Enters. v Gralnick, 127 A.D.2d 651, 652). Movant's showing with respect to the convenience of witnesses was insufficient to overcome this general rule. The convenience of the parties and their employees is not to be considered (Coles v LaGuardia Med. Group, 161 A.D.2d 166), and it is hardly an inconvenience to require a witness to travel from Queens to the Bronx, a bus or subway ride away (see, Rodriguez v Ryder Truck Rental, 100 A.D.2d 811).

Concur — Murphy, P.J., Carro, Rosenberger and Ellerin, JJ.


Summaries of

Brooks v. Lefrak

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, First Department
Dec 10, 1992
188 A.D.2d 360 (N.Y. App. Div. 1992)
Case details for

Brooks v. Lefrak

Case Details

Full title:PEARLETTA BROOKS, Respondent, v. SAMUEL J. LEFRAK, Doing Business as…

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

Date published: Dec 10, 1992

Citations

188 A.D.2d 360 (N.Y. App. Div. 1992)

Citing Cases

Perez v. Port Auth. of New York & New Jersey

Plaintiffs' motion to consolidate is granted without opposition and for good cause shown. See CPLR 602 (trial…

Perez v. Port Auth. of New York

Plaintiffs' motion to consolidate is granted without opposition and for good cause shown. See CPLR 602 (trial…