From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Kubran v. Acme Brick Corp.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Jan 2, 1945
268 App. Div. 1046 (N.Y. App. Div. 1945)

Opinion

January 2, 1945.

Appeal from Rockland County.


Defendants in both actions are the same. A personal injury action was brought by one plaintiff in Kings County, and a property damage action was brought by his employer in Rockland County. Order reversed on the law and the facts, with ten dollars costs and disbursements against the Nyack Express Company, and the motion granted, without costs. The fact that the parties to the actions are different does not bar consolidation. ( Chemello v. Endlich, 236 N.Y. 653; Gibbs v. Sokol, 216 App. Div. 260; Dunn v. Mason, 7 Hill 154.) Both actions are based upon the same occurrence and the witnesses on the issue of liability will be the same. The case can be tried as soon in one county as in the other. The venue for the consolidated action is fixed in Kings County. Close, P.J., Hagarty, Carswell, Adel and Lewis, JJ., concur.


Summaries of

Kubran v. Acme Brick Corp.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Jan 2, 1945
268 App. Div. 1046 (N.Y. App. Div. 1945)
Case details for

Kubran v. Acme Brick Corp.

Case Details

Full title:JOSEPH KUBRAN, an Infant, by His Guardian ad Litem, MARGARET KUBRAN…

Court:Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department

Date published: Jan 2, 1945

Citations

268 App. Div. 1046 (N.Y. App. Div. 1945)

Citing Cases

White v. Boston & Maine RR

However, a court will have no difficulty in explaining these rules of law to the jury and it is not…

White v. Boston Maine R.R

However, a court will have no difficulty in explaining these rules of law to the jury and it is not…