Case Name: Cross & Brown Company, Appellant, v. Cimbar Corporation, Respondent. Ada Stoothoff, Doing Business as Branham Real Estate, Plaintiff, v. Cimbar Corporation, Defendant
Court: New York Supreme Court, Appellate Division
Jurisdiction: New York
Decision Date: 1949-02-21
Citations: 275 A.D.2d 680
Docket Number: 
Parties: Cross & Brown Company, Appellant, v. Cimbar Corporation, Respondent. Ada Stoothoff, Doing Business as Branham Real Estate, Plaintiff, v. Cimbar Corporation, Defendant.
Judges: 
Reporter: Appellate Division Reports
Volume: 275
Pages: 680–680

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

Opinion:
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.