Parker v Troutman Sanders LLP

Parker v Troutman Sanders LLP 2011 NY Slip Op 08645 Decided on November 29, 2011 Appellate Division, First Department Published by New York State Law Reporting Bureau pursuant to Judiciary Law § 431. This opinion is uncorrected and subject to revision before publication in the Official Reports.

Decided on November 29, 2011
Mazzarelli, J.P., Andrias, Friedman, Catterson, Freedman, JJ.
6167N 111240/10

[*1]Diana Parker, as Executor of Index No. the Estate of Gertrude Neumark Rothschild, Plaintiff-Appellant,

v

Troutman Sanders LLP, et al., Defendants-Respondents.




Mintz Levin Cohn Ferris Glovsky & Popeo, PC, New York
(John M. Delehanty of counsel), for appellant.
Meiselman, Denlea, Packman, Carton & Eberz P.C., White
Plains (Joanna F. Sandolo of counsel), for Troutman Sanders
LLP, respondent.
Davis & Gilbert LLP, New York (David S. Greenberg of
counsel), for Albert Jacobs LLP and Albert Jacobs, respondents.

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Paul Wooten, J.), entered April 1, 2011, which, to the extent appealed from, denied plaintiff's motion to place venue of the consolidated action in New York County and granted the cross motions of defendants to place venue in Westchester County, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

Defendants filed their actions in Westchester County before plaintiff filed her action in New York County. Accordingly, upon consolidating the related actions pursuant to CPLR 602, the court providently exercised its discretion in placing venue in
Westchester County (Teitelbaum v PTR Co., 6 AD3d 254, 255 [2004]). Plaintiff failed to show that material witnesses would be inconvenienced (id.), or that other special circumstances warranted placing venue in New York County, which would depart from the first-filed rule (cf. Harrison v Harrison, 16 AD3d 206, 207 [2005] and (see Velasquez v C.F.T., Inc., 240 AD2d 178, 179 [1997]). [*2]

We decline to determine whether defendants' complaints were facially defective due to their alleged failure to comply with part 137 of the Judiciary Law (see 22 NYCRR 137.6[b]), as it is for the Westchester County court to address such a claim.

THIS CONSTITUTES THE DECISION AND ORDER
OF THE SUPREME COURT, APPELLATE DIVISION, FIRST DEPARTMENT.

ENTERED: NOVEMBER 29, 2011

CLERK