Parker v. Troutman Sanders LLP

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Parker v. Troutman Sanders LLP

89 A.D.3d 638, 933 N.Y.2d 277

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

DecidedNovember 29, 2011

StatusPublished

This text of 89 A.D.3d 638 (Parker v. Troutman Sanders LLP) 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

Parker v. Troutman Sanders LLP, 89 A.D.3d 638, 933 N.Y.2d 277 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2011).

Pincite

Opinion

Defendants filed their actions in Westchester County before plaintiff filed her action in New York County. Accordingly, upon consolidating the related actions pursuant to CPLR 602, the court providently exercised its discretion in placing venue in Westchester County (Teitelbaum v PTR Co., 6 AD3d 254, 255 [2004]). Plaintiff failed to show that material witnesses would be inconvenienced (id.), or that other special circumstances warranted placing venue in New York County, which would depart from the first-filed rule (cf. Harrison v Harrison, 16 AD3d 206, 207 [2005]) and (see Velasquez v C.F.T., Inc., 240 AD2d 178, 179 [1997]).

We decline to determine whether defendants’ complaints were facially defective due to their alleged failure to comply with part 137 of the Judiciary Law (see 22 NYCRR 137.6 [b]), as it is for the Westchester County court to address such a claim. Concur— Mazzarelli, J.P, Andrias, Friedman, Catterson and Freedman, JJ. [Prior Case History: 2011 NY Slip Op 30764(U).]

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

Defendants filed their actions in Westchester County before plaintiff filed her action in New York County. Accordingly, upon consolidating the related actions pursuant to CPLR 602, the court providently exercised its discretion in placing venue in Westchester County (Teitelbaum v PTR Co., 6 AD3d 254, 255 [2004]). Plaintiff failed to show that material witnesses would be inconvenienced (id.), or that other special circumstances warranted placing venue in New York County, which would depart from the first-filed rule (cf. Harrison v Harrison, 16 AD3d 206, 207 [2005]) and (see Velasquez v C.F.T., Inc., 240 AD2d 178, 179 [1997]).

We decline to determine whether defendants’ complaints were facially defective due to their alleged failure to comply with part 137 of the Judiciary Law (see 22 NYCRR 137.6 [b]), as it is for the Westchester County court to address such a claim. Concur— Mazzarelli, J.P, Andrias, Friedman, Catterson and Freedman, JJ. [Prior Case History: 2011 NY Slip Op 30764(U).]

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

89 A.D.3d 638, 933 N.Y.2d 277, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/parker-v-troutman-sanders-llp-nyappdiv-2011.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack