Israel v. Hirsh

6 Citing cases

  1. Pasquale v. Security Mutual Life Insurance

    273 A.D.2d 621 (N.Y. App. Div. 2000)   Cited 2 times

    On appeal, plaintiff presses his claim that Supreme Court erred in approving the removal of this action to New York County because Broome County is the more appropriate venue. "[C]onsolidated actions are generally tried where the first action was commenced, although the placement of venue rests in the sound discretion of the motion court" (Reckson Assocs. Realty Corp. v. Blasland, Bouck Lee, 230 A.D.2d 723, 725; see, Rist v. Comi, supra;Israel v. Hirsh, 81 A.D.2d 694). Having found that Supreme Court properly declined to review the propriety of the exercise of this discretion by Supreme Court in New York County, we also refuse to do so. Finally, we disagree with Security Mutual's posture that this appeal was rendered moot when the First Department issued its decision regarding plaintiff's appeal.

  2. Nixon v. Alexander

    151 A.D.2d 846 (N.Y. App. Div. 1989)

    Nor has any demonstration been made that any significantly greater court calendar congestion exists in either county. On the basis of the foregoing, the factors with respect to the more appropriate venue are at most in equipoise, with no significant preponderance favoring either county. This being so, the priority of suit should control (see, Troy Sav. Bank v American Equity Funding, 120 A.D.2d 828, 829; Israel v. Hirsh, 81 A.D.2d 694). Clearly, there has been no showing of compelling circumstances requiring disregard of the general rule that venue of joint trials should be fixed in the county which has jurisdiction of the action first commenced and, accordingly, Supreme Court abused its discretion in changing venue in action No. 2 from Kings County to Ulster County (see, Leung v. Sell, 115 A.D.2d 929, 930). The order should, therefore, be reversed, the cross motion seeking to change venue in action No. 1 to Kings County should be granted, and the actions joined for trial in Kings County.

  3. Troy Savings Bank v. Am. Equity Funding, Inc.

    120 A.D.2d 828 (N.Y. App. Div. 1986)   Cited 3 times

    Clearly, action No. 1 was, at least as against American, commenced in Rensselaer County prior to the commencement of action No. 2 in Nassau County. Thus, if all other factors are equal, venue should be set in Rensselaer County since this is where the first action was instituted (see, Hinman, Straub, Pigors Manning v Broder, 89 A.D.2d 278, 281-282; Israel v Hirsh, 81 A.D.2d 694; Kiamesha Concord v Greenman, 29 A.D.2d 904). In this case, however, all other factors are not equal.

  4. Cole v. Lawas

    97 A.D.2d 912 (N.Y. App. Div. 1983)   Cited 8 times

    Special Term also did not abuse its discretion under CPLR 602 in designating the place of trial of the consolidated actions as Warren County. "[R]ough equality of factors in favor of both counties will not warrant a reversal of the trial court's exercise of discretion" ( Israel v Hirsh, 81 A.D.2d 694, 695). In the case at bar, there is that "rough equality of factors" and, thus, no abuse of judicial discretion has been shown in the court's decision to fix venue for the consolidated actions in Warren County.

  5. AHMED v. KHAN

    2006 N.Y. Slip Op. 51019 (N.Y. Sup. Ct. 2006)

    While courts will consider a wide variety of circumstances which may necessitate the fixing of venue in one county over another, "rough equality of factors in favor of both counties will not warrant a reversal of the trial court's exercise of discretion." Israel v. Hirsh, 81 AD2d 694, 694-95 (Third Dept., 1981).

  6. Ultrashmere v. 38 Town Assoc

    123 Misc. 2d 102 (N.Y. Sup. Ct. 1984)   Cited 4 times

    Since the New York action was commenced first, and there are no special circumstances present warranting departure from the general rule that consolidation should be directed in the county where the first suit was instituted, the actions shall be consolidated in this county. (See Colson v Pelgram, 259 N.Y. 370; Israel v Hirsh, 81 A.D.2d 694; Boyea v Lambeth, 33 A.D.2d 928.)