Nicholas v. Brini

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Nicholas v. Brini

204 A.D.2d 194, 612 N.Y.S.2d 123

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

DecidedMay 19, 1994

StatusPublished

This text of 204 A.D.2d 194 (Nicholas v. Brini) 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

Nicholas v. Brini, 204 A.D.2d 194, 612 N.Y.S.2d 123 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1994).

Pincite

Opinion

—Order, Supreme Court, Bronx County (Barry Salman, J.) entered November 18, 1993, which denied plaintiff’s motion to restore Action No. 1 to the trial calendar without prejudice to renewal in Supreme Court, Suffolk County, and granted defendant Cotton’s cross motion to consolidate Action No. 1 pending in Bronx County with Action No. 2 pending in Suffolk County to the extent of directing a joint trial of Action No. 1 and Action No. 2 in Suffolk County, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

Notwithstanding that the car accident giving rise to these two actions occurred in Bronx County, it was not an unreasonable exercise of discretion for the IAS Court to direct a joint [195]*195trial in Suffolk County, the venue of the action first commenced (see, Olownia v Toussaint, 98 AD2d 716, 717), where plaintiff in Action No. 1, the only proponent of a Bronx County venue, resided in Westchester County at the time she commenced Action No. 1 and presently resides in Alabama, and does not demonstrate how any alleged material nonparty witnesses would be inconvenienced by a trial in Suffolk rather than Bronx County (cf., Strasser v Neuringer, 137 AD2d 750). Concur—Ellerin, J. P., Asch, Rubin, Nardelli and Williams, JJ.

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

—Order, Supreme Court, Bronx County (Barry Salman, J.) entered November 18, 1993, which denied plaintiff’s motion to restore Action No. 1 to the trial calendar without prejudice to renewal in Supreme Court, Suffolk County, and granted defendant Cotton’s cross motion to consolidate Action No. 1 pending in Bronx County with Action No. 2 pending in Suffolk County to the extent of directing a joint trial of Action No. 1 and Action No. 2 in Suffolk County, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

Notwithstanding that the car accident giving rise to these two actions occurred in Bronx County, it was not an unreasonable exercise of discretion for the IAS Court to direct a joint [195]*195trial in Suffolk County, the venue of the action first commenced (see, Olownia v Toussaint, 98 AD2d 716, 717), where plaintiff in Action No. 1, the only proponent of a Bronx County venue, resided in Westchester County at the time she commenced Action No. 1 and presently resides in Alabama, and does not demonstrate how any alleged material nonparty witnesses would be inconvenienced by a trial in Suffolk rather than Bronx County (cf., Strasser v Neuringer, 137 AD2d 750). Concur—Ellerin, J. P., Asch, Rubin, Nardelli and Williams, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

204 A.D.2d 194, 612 N.Y.S.2d 123, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/nicholas-v-brini-nyappdiv-1994.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack