Ferrara v. Leventhal

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Ferrara v. Leventhal

46 A.D.2d 656, 359 N.Y.S.2d 1005, 1974 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3974

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

DecidedOctober 15, 1974

StatusPublished

This text of 46 A.D.2d 656 (Ferrara v. Leventhal) 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

Ferrara v. Leventhal, 46 A.D.2d 656, 359 N.Y.S.2d 1005, 1974 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3974 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1974).

Pincite

Opinion

—'Appeal by the County of Nassau, the defendant and third-party plaintiff in Action No. 2, from so much of two orders of the Supreme Court, Kings County, dated March 15, 1974 and March 21, 1974, respectively, and made under the title of Actions Nos. 1 and 2 (both are medical malpractice' actions), as, in directing that the two actions be tried jointly, ordered the joint trial to proceed in Kings County. Orders affirmed insofar as appealed from, with one bill of $20 costs and disbursements to plaintiff to cover both appeals. Special Term did not abuse or improvidently exercise its discretion in directing that the joint trial, to which the record discloses all parties have consented, should proceed in the Supreme Court, County of Kings. CPLR 504 provides that an action against a county, city, town or village must be instituted in the county in which such political subdivision of the State is located. Thus, Action No. 2 against Nassau County properly was instituted in Nassau County. CPLR 503 provides that, absent a provision of the CPLR to the contrary, actions must be instituted in a county in which [657]*657one of the parties resides at the commencement thereof. Thus, Action No. 1 properly was instituted in Kings County, in which plaintiff and the two defendant physicians resided at the commencement thereof. CPLR 502 provides that “Where, because of joinder of claims or parties, there is a conflict of provisions under this article [pertaining to venue of actions], the court, upon motion, shall order as the place of trial one proper under this article as to at least one of the parties or claims.” Thus, by reason of the orders providing for a joint trial of Action No. 1 and Action No. 2, the court could order the joint trial to proceed in either Kings County or Nassau County, dependent upon Special Term’s discretion as to how the interests of justice best would be served under the circumstances presented by the two actions. Hopkins, Acting P. J., Martuscello, Latham and Shapiro, JJ., concur; Christ, J., not voting.

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

—'Appeal by the County of Nassau, the defendant and third-party plaintiff in Action No. 2, from so much of two orders of the Supreme Court, Kings County, dated March 15, 1974 and March 21, 1974, respectively, and made under the title of Actions Nos. 1 and 2 (both are medical malpractice' actions), as, in directing that the two actions be tried jointly, ordered the joint trial to proceed in Kings County. Orders affirmed insofar as appealed from, with one bill of $20 costs and disbursements to plaintiff to cover both appeals. Special Term did not abuse or improvidently exercise its discretion in directing that the joint trial, to which the record discloses all parties have consented, should proceed in the Supreme Court, County of Kings. CPLR 504 provides that an action against a county, city, town or village must be instituted in the county in which such political subdivision of the State is located. Thus, Action No. 2 against Nassau County properly was instituted in Nassau County. CPLR 503 provides that, absent a provision of the CPLR to the contrary, actions must be instituted in a county in which [657]*657one of the parties resides at the commencement thereof. Thus, Action No. 1 properly was instituted in Kings County, in which plaintiff and the two defendant physicians resided at the commencement thereof. CPLR 502 provides that “Where, because of joinder of claims or parties, there is a conflict of provisions under this article [pertaining to venue of actions], the court, upon motion, shall order as the place of trial one proper under this article as to at least one of the parties or claims.” Thus, by reason of the orders providing for a joint trial of Action No. 1 and Action No. 2, the court could order the joint trial to proceed in either Kings County or Nassau County, dependent upon Special Term’s discretion as to how the interests of justice best would be served under the circumstances presented by the two actions. Hopkins, Acting P. J., Martuscello, Latham and Shapiro, JJ., concur; Christ, J., not voting.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

46 A.D.2d 656, 359 N.Y.S.2d 1005, 1974 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3974, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/ferrara-v-leventhal-nyappdiv-1974.