Wilk v. Perillo Bros. Fuel Oil Corp.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Wilk v. Perillo Bros. Fuel Oil Corp.

101 A.D.2d 859, 476 N.Y.S.2d 13, 1984 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 18546

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

DecidedMay 21, 1984

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 101 A.D.2d 859 (Wilk v. Perillo Bros. Fuel Oil Corp.) 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

Wilk v. Perillo Bros. Fuel Oil Corp., 101 A.D.2d 859, 476 N.Y.S.2d 13, 1984 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 18546 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1984).

Pincite

Opinion

Plaintiff, in action No. 2, appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Suffolk County (Cannavo, J.), dated October 6, 1983, which granted a motion by the defendants in actions Nos. 1 and 2 for a change of venue of action No. 2 from Queens County to Suffolk County, and a joint trial with action No. 1 pending in Suffolk County. 11 Order modified by deleting so much thereof as directed the removal of action No. 2 to Suffolk County, and by substituting therefor a provision directing that action No. 1 be removed from Suffolk County to Queens County, to be tried jointly with action No. 2 pending in Queens County. As so modified, order affirmed, with costs to the appellant. H Under the circumstances, it was an improvident exercise of discretion to transfer venue of action No. 2 to Suffolk County and direct a joint trial in said county. All things being equal, where consolidation or joint trials of actions begun in different counties is to be had, the venue should be in the county where jurisdiction was first invoked (Maccabee v Nangle, 33 AD2d 918). 11 Since action No. 2 was first commenced, venue and trial of both actions should lie in Queens County. Gibbons, J. P., O’Connor, Boyers and Lawrence, JJ., concur.

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

Plaintiff, in action No. 2, appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Suffolk County (Cannavo, J.), dated October 6, 1983, which granted a motion by the defendants in actions Nos. 1 and 2 for a change of venue of action No. 2 from Queens County to Suffolk County, and a joint trial with action No. 1 pending in Suffolk County. 11 Order modified by deleting so much thereof as directed the removal of action No. 2 to Suffolk County, and by substituting therefor a provision directing that action No. 1 be removed from Suffolk County to Queens County, to be tried jointly with action No. 2 pending in Queens County. As so modified, order affirmed, with costs to the appellant. H Under the circumstances, it was an improvident exercise of discretion to transfer venue of action No. 2 to Suffolk County and direct a joint trial in said county. All things being equal, where consolidation or joint trials of actions begun in different counties is to be had, the venue should be in the county where jurisdiction was first invoked (Maccabee v Nangle, 33 AD2d 918). 11 Since action No. 2 was first commenced, venue and trial of both actions should lie in Queens County. Gibbons, J. P., O’Connor, Boyers and Lawrence, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

101 A.D.2d 859, 476 N.Y.S.2d 13, 1984 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 18546, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/wilk-v-perillo-bros-fuel-oil-corp-nyappdiv-1984.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack