Case Name: Ramon Lopez, Respondent, v. Dominick Totillo et al., Respondents. (Action No. 1.); John J. Greeley et al., Appellants, v. Dominick Totillo et al., Respondents. (Action No. 2.); Virginia M. Kane, Appellant, v. Dominick Totillo et al., Respondents. (Action No. 3.); Curtis Lopez et al., Appellants, v. Dominick Totillo et al., Respondents. (Action No. 4.)
Court: New York Supreme Court, Appellate Division
Jurisdiction: New York
Decision Date: 1963-04-29
Citations: 18 A.D.2d 1107
Docket Number: 
Parties: Ramon Lopez, Respondent, v. Dominick Totillo et al., Respondents. (Action No. 1.); John J. Greeley et al., Appellants, v. Dominick Totillo et al., Respondents. (Action No. 2.); Virginia M. Kane, Appellant, v. Dominick Totillo et al., Respondents. (Action No. 3.); Curtis Lopez et al., Appellants, v. Dominick Totillo et al., Respondents. (Action No. 4.)
Judges: 
Reporter: Appellate Division Reports
Volume: 18
Pages: 1107–1108

Head Matter:
Ramon Lopez, Respondent, v. Dominick Totillo et al., Respondents. (Action No. 1.); John J. Greeley et al., Appellants, v. Dominick Totillo et al., Respondents. (Action No. 2.); Virginia M. Kane, Appellant, v. Dominick Totillo et al., Respondents. (Action No. 3.); Curtis Lopez et al., Appellants, v. Dominick Totillo et al., Respondents. (Action No. 4.)

Opinion:
In negligence actions, the plaintiffs in Actions Nos. 2, 3 and 4 appeal, as limited by their brief, from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Westchester County, dated August 8, 1961, granting a joint trial of all the actions, as directed- (pursuant to Civ. Prac. Act, § 96-a) that such trial be had in West- Chester County, where Action No. 1 is pending. Order, insofar as appealed from, affirmed, with one bill of $10 costs and disbursements. While Action No. 1 was brought in Westchester County after the commencement of Action No. 3 in Queens County (where the other actions are pending), nevertheless it also appears: (a) that the accident occurred in Westchester County; (b) that the injured parties received initial hospital and medical treatment in Westchester County; and (e) that the convenience of material witnesses will be promoted by a trial in that county. Under all these circumstances Special Term properly exercised its discretion in directing that the actions be tried together in Westchester County (Gerber v. B. G. R. Hotel Gorp., 10 A D 2d 956; Bernstein v. McKane, 3 A D 2d 764; Hobbs v. San Filippo, 281 App. Div. 929; Gruber v. Alpert, 257 App. Div. 1007). Beldoek, P. J., Ughetta, Christ, Hill and Rabin, JJ., concur.