From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Deutsch v. Wegh

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Feb 24, 2000
269 A.D.2d 487 (N.Y. App. Div. 2000)

Opinion

Submitted January 12, 2000

February 24, 2000

In two related actions to recover damages for personal injuries, etc., the defendants in Actions No. 1 and 2, George A. Handy, Sr., and Leroy Holding Co., Inc., s/h/a Leroy Hading Co., Inc., appeal, as limited by their brief, from stated portions of an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Rappaport, J.), dated February 25, 1999, which, inter alia, denied that branch of their cross motion which was to transfer the venue of Action No. 1 from Kings County to Montgomery County and to transfer the venue of Action No. 2 from Rockland County to Montgomery County.

Turner Owen (Carol R. Finocchio, New York, N.Y. [Lisa M. Cameau] of counsel), for appellants in both actions.

Julien Schlesinger, P.C., New York, N.Y. (Mary Elizabeth Burns of counsel), for respondents in Action No. 1.

Birbrower, Montalbano, Condon Frank, P.C., New City, N Y (Steven H. Beldock of counsel), for respondents in Action No. 2.

CORNELIUS J. O'BRIEN, J.P., MYRIAM J. ALTMAN, WILLIAM D. FRIEDMANN, LEO F. McGINITY, NANCY E. SMITH, JJ.


DECISION ORDER

ORDERED that the order is affirmed insofar as appealed from, with one bill of costs.

Action No. 1 was commenced in Kings County in February 1998, and a related action concerning the same automobile accident, Action No. 2, was commenced in Rockland County in July 1998. In response to the parties' separate motions and cross motions to consolidate the actions, the Supreme Court granted the motions to the extent of directing a joint trial and transferring the venue of Action No. 2 from Rockland County to Kings County.

Generally, where actions commenced in different counties have been joined for purposes of trial pursuant to CPLR 602, the venue should be placed in the county where the first action was commenced, unless special circumstances are present (see, Mattia v. Food Emporium, 259 A.D.2d 527 ; Maciejko v. Jarvis, 99 A.D.2d 799 ). The evidence presented in connection with the appellants' cross motion to transfer venue of both actions to Montgomery County based on the convenience of material witnesses failed to establish such special circumstances or to satisfy their burden of proof underCPLR 510(3) (see, O'Brien v. Vassar Bros. Hosp., 207 A.D.2d 169 ). Accordingly, the Supreme Court properly transferred the venue of Action No. 2 to Kings County, where the first action was initiated.


Summaries of

Deutsch v. Wegh

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Feb 24, 2000
269 A.D.2d 487 (N.Y. App. Div. 2000)
Case details for

Deutsch v. Wegh

Case Details

Full title:ESTHER DEUTSCH, et al., respondents, v. MIRIAM WEGH, defendant, GEORGE A…

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

Date published: Feb 24, 2000

Citations

269 A.D.2d 487 (N.Y. App. Div. 2000)
703 N.Y.S.2d 730

Citing Cases

Santiago v. Tristate Realty LLC

When consolidation or joint trials are ordered under CPLR 602 (a), venue should generally be placed in the…

Poncet v. Patel

Turning to the issue of venue, generally, where actions commenced in different counties have been joined for…