Hyperlawhypertext legal database Cross & Brown Co. v. Cimbar Corp. 275 A.D.2d 680

← Cases

Cross & Brown Co. v. Cimbar Corp.

275 A.D.2d 680 Court N.Y. App. Div. Decision date 1949-02-21 English

Contents

Majority

p. 680
Cross & Brown Company, Appellant, v. Cimbar Corporation, Respondent. Ada Stoothoff, Doing Business as Branham Real Estate, Plaintiff, v. Cimbar Corporation, Defendant.

Both actions arose out of the same transaction and should be consolidated. (Civ. Prac. Act, § 96.) Appellant, having commenced its action in New York County prior to the commencement of the action in Westchester County, and respondent having failed to prove that the convenience of witnesses would be served by a trial in Westchester County, the consolidated causes should be tried in New York County. (Cf. Funk v. Nelson, 264 App. Div. 876 .) Nolan, P. J., Carswell, Adel, Sneed and Wenzel, JJ., concur.