From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

GONZALEZ v. JIAN MING ZHOU

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Apr 4, 2000
270 A.D.2d 387 (N.Y. App. Div. 2000)

Opinion

Submitted October 25, 1999.

April 4, 2000.

In five related actions to recover damages for personal injuries which were joined for trial, the plaintiffs in Action No. 1 appeal, as limited by their brief, from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Rappaport, J.), dated January 19, 1999, as (a) denied their motion for leave to file a certificate of readiness and to place Action No. 1 on the trial calendar, and (b) granted those branches of the motion of Jian Ming Zhou, a defendant in Action Nos. 1, 2, 3, and 4, and the cross motion of Hunan Garden Restaurant, Haiden Hunan, and Zi Q. Zhen, defendants or third-party defendants in Action Nos. 1, 2, 3, 4, and 5, which were to change the venue of the trial in Action Nos. 1, 2, and 3, which were previously joined for trial in Kings County by order of the same court, dated July 27, 1998, to the Supreme Court, Queens County, where Action Nos. 4 and 5 are pending.

Steven Weissman, Plainview, N.Y. (John Marshall of counsel), for appellants.

Cheven, Keely Hatzis (Thomas Torto, New York, N.Y., of counsel), for respondent Jian Ming Zhou.

Fiedelman McGaw, Jericho, N.Y. (William D. Buckley of counsel), for respondents Hunan Garden Restaurant, Zi Q. Zheng, and Haiden Hunan.

WILLIAM C. THOMPSON, J.P., DANIEL W. JOY, GABRIEL M. KRAUSMAN, GLORIA GOLDSTEIN, JJ.


DECISION ORDER

ORDERED that the order is modified, by deleting the provision thereof which granted the motion and cross motion and changed the venue of the trials in Action Nos. 1, 2, and 3 to the Supreme Court, Queens County, and substituting therefor a provision denying the motion and cross motion and fixing venue of those actions and Action Nos. 4 and 5 in the Supreme Court, Kings County; as so modified, the order is affirmed insofar as appealed from, with costs to the appellants; and it is further,

ORDERED that the Clerk of the Supreme Court, Queens County is directed to deliver to the Clerk of the Supreme Court, Kings County, all the papers filed in Action Nos. 1, 2, 3, 4, and 5 (see, CPLR 511[d]).

Absent special circumstances, when actions that have been commenced in different counties have been joined for trial, venue should be placed in the county where the first action was commenced (see, Mitchel v. Thacker, 159 A.D.2d 701 ; see also,Almoghazy v. Gonzalez, 249 A.D.2d 349, 350 ; Strasser v. Neuringer, 137 A.D.2d 750 ; Boyea v. Lambeth, 33 A.D.2d 928 ; cf., Mattia v. Food Emporium, Inc., 259 A.D.2d 527 ; Matter of Government Empls. Ins. Co. v. Uniroyal Goodrich Tire Co., 242 A.D.2d 765 ).

Here, the movants have failed to establish the existence of special circumstances which would warrant a departure from the general rule (see, Almoghazy v. Gonzalez, supra; Mitchel v. Thacker, supra). Since the first of the actions was commenced in Kings County, venue of the trials in all five actions should be fixed there, and the order is modified accordingly.

The appellants' remaining contention is without merit.

THOMPSON, J.P., JOY, KRAUSMAN, and GOLDSTEIN, JJ., concur.


Summaries of

GONZALEZ v. JIAN MING ZHOU

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Apr 4, 2000
270 A.D.2d 387 (N.Y. App. Div. 2000)
Case details for

GONZALEZ v. JIAN MING ZHOU

Case Details

Full title:MARTIN GONZALEZ, et al., appellants, v. JIAN MING ZHOU, defendant…

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

Date published: Apr 4, 2000

Citations

270 A.D.2d 387 (N.Y. App. Div. 2000)
705 N.Y.S.2d 262

Citing Cases

Hughes v. Pacienza

Ordered that the order is affirmed insofar as appealed from, with one bill of costs to the respondents…

Fitzsimons v. Brennan

Contrary to the defendants' contentions, the Supreme Court providently exercised its discretion in granting…