Conklin v. Cohen

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Conklin v. Cohen

26 A.D.2d 606, 271 N.Y.S.2d 626

CourtAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York

DecidedJune 28, 1966

DocketAction No. 1; Action No. 2; Action No. 3

StatusPublished

This text of 26 A.D.2d 606 (Conklin v. Cohen) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Conklin v. Cohen, 26 A.D.2d 606, 271 N.Y.S.2d 626 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1966).

Pincite

Opinion

Memorandum by the Court.

Plaintiffs Tessler and Katz in Action No. 2 appeal from an order of the Supreme Court at Special Term granting defendant Cohen’s motion for a joint trial of the above-entitled actions in Sullivan County. These actions arise from a motor vehicle accident which occurred in Sullivan County. The venue of Action No. 1 which was first commenced, was laid there as was that of Action No. 3. Action No. 2 is pending in Kings County. On this record we cannot say that the considerations which favor a joint trial of the actions and the fixing of Sullivan County as the appropriate venue are so outweighed by the factors urged by appellants as to warrant the disturbance of the discretion exercised by Special Term. Order affirmed, without costs. Gibson, P. J., Reynolds, Taylor, Aulisi and Staley, Jr., JJ., concur.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Memorandum by the Court.

Plaintiffs Tessler and Katz in Action No. 2 appeal from an order of the Supreme Court at Special Term granting defendant Cohen’s motion for a joint trial of the above-entitled actions in Sullivan County. These actions arise from a motor vehicle accident which occurred in Sullivan County. The venue of Action No. 1 which was first commenced, was laid there as was that of Action No. 3. Action No. 2 is pending in Kings County. On this record we cannot say that the considerations which favor a joint trial of the actions and the fixing of Sullivan County as the appropriate venue are so outweighed by the factors urged by appellants as to warrant the disturbance of the discretion exercised by Special Term. Order affirmed, without costs. Gibson, P. J., Reynolds, Taylor, Aulisi and Staley, Jr., JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

26 A.D.2d 606, 271 N.Y.S.2d 626, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/conklin-v-cohen-nyappdiv-1966.