Tylan Ltd. v. Cramer

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Tylan Ltd. v. Cramer

41 A.D.2d 883, 342 N.Y.S.2d 926, 1973 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4639

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

DecidedApril 26, 1973

StatusPublished

This text of 41 A.D.2d 883 (Tylan Ltd. v. Cramer) 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

Tylan Ltd. v. Cramer, 41 A.D.2d 883, 342 N.Y.S.2d 926, 1973 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4639 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1973).

Pincite

Opinion

—Appeal from an order of the Supreme Court at Special Term, entered August 9,1972 in Schenectady County, which granted the motion of respondents to consolidate the above actions and placed venue in ‘ Schenectady County. In a prior proceeding the same Justice as heard the motions herein had directed consolidation of Actions Nos. 1 and 2 and placed venue in Albany County where jurisdiction had been first invoked, according to the general rule. (Cf. Maeeabee V. Nangle, 33 A D 2d 918.) Upon the present record there would be no basis for placing venue in Schenectady County. (See Linton v. Lehigh Val. R, R. Co., [884]*88432 Á D 2d 148; Kiamisha Concord v. Greenman, 29 A D 2d 904.) As to consolidation of Actions Nos. 1 and 2, the propriety thereof is not disputed upon this appeal and there are common questions of law and fact. Action No. 3 involves the same individuals as Actions Nos. 1 and 2, but does not appear to involve the same corporation and there are no apparent common questions of law and fact. Order modified, on the law and the facts, by striking therefrom so much as consolidated Action No. 3, with Actions Nos. 1 and 2 and named Schenectady County as the place of trial, and trial directed in Albany County, with costs to appellant, Morris Cramer. Herlihy, P. J., Staley, Jr., Greenblott, Sweeney and Kane, JJ., concur.

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

—Appeal from an order of the Supreme Court at Special Term, entered August 9,1972 in Schenectady County, which granted the motion of respondents to consolidate the above actions and placed venue in ‘ Schenectady County. In a prior proceeding the same Justice as heard the motions herein had directed consolidation of Actions Nos. 1 and 2 and placed venue in Albany County where jurisdiction had been first invoked, according to the general rule. (Cf. Maeeabee V. Nangle, 33 A D 2d 918.) Upon the present record there would be no basis for placing venue in Schenectady County. (See Linton v. Lehigh Val. R, R. Co., [884]*88432 Á D 2d 148; Kiamisha Concord v. Greenman, 29 A D 2d 904.) As to consolidation of Actions Nos. 1 and 2, the propriety thereof is not disputed upon this appeal and there are common questions of law and fact. Action No. 3 involves the same individuals as Actions Nos. 1 and 2, but does not appear to involve the same corporation and there are no apparent common questions of law and fact. Order modified, on the law and the facts, by striking therefrom so much as consolidated Action No. 3, with Actions Nos. 1 and 2 and named Schenectady County as the place of trial, and trial directed in Albany County, with costs to appellant, Morris Cramer. Herlihy, P. J., Staley, Jr., Greenblott, Sweeney and Kane, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

41 A.D.2d 883, 342 N.Y.S.2d 926, 1973 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4639, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/tylan-ltd-v-cramer-nyappdiv-1973.