Teitelbaum v. PTR Co.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Teitelbaum v. PTR Co.

6 A.D.3d 254, 774 N.Y.S.2d 699, 2004 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4575

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York·Decided April 20, 2004·Published·Cited by 9 cases

Opinion

[255]*255Order, Supreme Court, Bronx County (Barry Salman, J.), entered February 5, 2003, which granted defendants’ motion to transfer venue to Westchester County for consolidation with another action pending there, unanimously affirmed, with costs.

Consolidation is mandated by judicial economy where two lawsuits are intertwined with common questions of law and fact. These two actions arose out of the same partnership agreement, the parties to each possess knowledge and information relevant to the claim in the other, and the lists of potential witnesses in the two cases are almost identical (see Firequench, Inc. v Kaplan, 256 AD2d 213 [1998]). Moreover, the ultimate goal of both the Teitelbaum mortgage foreclosure suit herein and the partnership dispute pending in Westchester is the sale of the same property.

Absent exceptional circumstances involving the convenience of material witnesses, the venue of a consolidated action should be the county in which the first action was commenced (Mattia v Food Emporium, 259 AD2d 527 [1999]; cf. Lopez v Chaliwit, 268 AD2d 377 [2000])—in this case, Westchester County.

We have considered plaintiffs remaining arguments and find them to be without merit. Concur—Buckley, P.J., Nardelli, Andrias, Sullivan and Gonzalez, JJ.

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

[255]*255Order, Supreme Court, Bronx County (Barry Salman, J.), entered February 5, 2003, which granted defendants’ motion to transfer venue to Westchester County for consolidation with another action pending there, unanimously affirmed, with costs.

Consolidation is mandated by judicial economy where two lawsuits are intertwined with common questions of law and fact. These two actions arose out of the same partnership agreement, the parties to each possess knowledge and information relevant to the claim in the other, and the lists of potential witnesses in the two cases are almost identical (see Firequench, Inc. v Kaplan, 256 AD2d 213 [1998]). Moreover, the ultimate goal of both the Teitelbaum mortgage foreclosure suit herein and the partnership dispute pending in Westchester is the sale of the same property.

Absent exceptional circumstances involving the convenience of material witnesses, the venue of a consolidated action should be the county in which the first action was commenced (Mattia v Food Emporium, 259 AD2d 527 [1999]; cf. Lopez v Chaliwit, 268 AD2d 377 [2000])—in this case, Westchester County.

We have considered plaintiffs remaining arguments and find them to be without merit. Concur—Buckley, P.J., Nardelli, Andrias, Sullivan and Gonzalez, JJ.

Teitelbaum v. PTR Co., 6 A.D.3d 254, 774 N.Y.S.2d 699, 2004 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4575 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2004).

Pincite

6 A.D.3d 254 (Teitelbaum v. PTR Co.) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related