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

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York·Decided November 29, 2011·Published

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).]

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

Pincite

89 A.D.3d 638 (Parker v. Troutman Sanders LLP) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related