From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Konoski v. Romano

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Nov 21, 1988
144 A.D.2d 541 (N.Y. App. Div. 1988)

Opinion

November 21, 1988

Appeal from the Supreme Court, Suffolk County (Orgera, J.).


Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.

In light of the common questions of law and fact in these actions, both of which arise out of a retainer agreement, the court properly consolidated them (CPLR 602 [a]). Further, under the circumstances, the court did not abuse its discretion in fixing venue of the consolidated action in Suffolk County, which was the county in which the first action was commenced (CPLR 602; Maldonado v. Whiting, 109 A.D.2d 871). The defendant's contention that the first action should have been dismissed on the ground of forum non conveniens is without merit (CPLR 327). Mollen, P.J., Brown, Kunzeman, Weinstein and Kooper, JJ., concur.


Summaries of

Konoski v. Romano

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Nov 21, 1988
144 A.D.2d 541 (N.Y. App. Div. 1988)
Case details for

Konoski v. Romano

Case Details

Full title:JOHN KONOSKI, Respondent, v. RALPH T. ROMANO, Appellant. (Action No. 1.…

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

Date published: Nov 21, 1988

Citations

144 A.D.2d 541 (N.Y. App. Div. 1988)