AMICUS AI
Citation Codes
Equivalent Citations
citation codes
Judges
Are you a practicing lawyer?
Enhance your digital presence and reach by creating a Casemine profile.
Upload pleading to use the new AI search
Cites
Cited by
Citation Codes
Equivalent Citations
citation codes
Judges

ANDREW MITCHEL, Plaintiff, v. DANIEL THACKER, Defendants. (And Three Other Actions.) THEODORA CANARAS, Indi

Ordered that the order is affirmed insofar as appealed from, with one bill of costs to the respondents appearing separately and filing separate briefs.

Although the defendant Koch Carbonic Inc. initially moved for consolidation, the court properly ordered that these actions be tried jointly (see, Ingle v Glamore Motor Sales, 111 A.D.2d 746, 748; City of New Rochelle v American Fid. Fire Ins. Co., 89 A.D.2d 917, 918). The record shows that all four actions arose out of a multivehicle accident that occurred on July 7, 1986 at the intersection of West 89th Street and West End Avenue in Manhattan.

Moreover, once having joined the actions for trial, the court was required to fix the venue for the joint trial (see, Woods v County of Westchester, 112 A.D.2d 1037, 1038). In this regard, the general rule for determining the venue of actions which have been joined for trial, where the actions have been commenced in different counties, is that absent special circumstances, venue should be placed in the county where the first action was commenced (see, Strasser v Neuringer, 137 A.D.2d 750, 751; Woods v County of Westchester, supra). We fail to perceive any circumstances herein which would require a departure from the general rule (see, Maciejko v Jarvis, 99 A.D.2d 799), and, therefore, the court properly placed venue in Queens County.

We find that the plaintiff's remaining contentions are either unpreserved for appellate review (see, Mastronardi v Mitchell, 109 A.D.2d 825, 828) or without merit. Sullivan, J.P., Harwood, Balletta and Miller, JJ., concur.

Use AI to get other relevant cases.

Comments

MITCHEL v. THACKER
(Mar 26, 1990)