Chagin v 283 Skidmore Rd., Inc.

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

Chagin v 283 Skidmore Rd., Inc. 2019 NY Slip Op 34705(U) January 28, 2019 Supreme Court, Suffolk County Docket Number: Index No. 609789/2018 Judge: Joseph A. Santorelli Cases posted with a "30000" identifier, i.e., 2013 NY Slip Op 30001(U), are republished from various New York State and local government sources, including the New York State Unified Court System's eCourts Service. This opinion is uncorrected and not selected for official publication. INDEX NO. 609789/2018 FILED: SUFFOLK COUNTY CLERK 01/30/2019 04:37 PM NYSCEF DOC. NO. 39 O ';<·l~\ SHORT FORM ORDER SHORT FORM ORDER RECEIVED NYSCEF: 01/30/2019 ·.'-' t~--/J.~}) :.i-.:-.: ~T( .iv ,,,;· v ·.·. . INDEX No. C:ALNo. "~ilJ,rA '!{ • SUPREME COURT - STATE STATE OF NEW NEW YORK YORK SUPREME COURT I.A.S. PART PART 10 - SUFFOLK COUNTY LA.S. SUFFOLK COUNTY I I 7\~•.. '1 ...._ 3Ji~ PRESENT: PRESENT: Hon. _ _J~O~S=E=P~H' JOSEPH-"-'-A=•...c=Scc..A=N-' A. SANTORELLI --T"'-O==RE=L=L-"--I_ MOTIONDATE MOTION DATE 12-22-15 12-22-15 SUBMITDATE ~UBMIT DATE 1-12-17 1"12-17 MG Mot. Seq.# Seq. # 02 - MG -Mot D Mot. Seq.# Seq. # 03 -Mot Justice of Supreme Court Court Justice of the Supreme ----------------------------------------------------------------X WILLIAM D. WEXLER, WEXLER, ESQ. ESQ. WILLIAM At!orneysfor Plaintiff Plainuff in Action Action#/CHAG/N Attorneysfor #1- CHAG1N DEER PARK PARK AVE AVE 816 DEER NORTH BABYLON, BABYLON, NY NY 11703 11703 NORTH YURITY Y. CHAGIN, Plaintiff, Plaintiff, -against-against283 SKIDMORE ROAD, INC., INC., GEORGIOS GEORGIOS A. SKIDMORE ROAD, DARSHAN RAMESH RAMESH SHAH, LOUIZOS, DARSHAN LOUIZOS, SHAH, and MONICA A. MASTRO, MASTRO, MONICA Defendants. Defendants. LAW OFFICE OF OF FRANKINI FRANKIN I & HARMS HARMS LA W OFFICE Attorneys for Defendants Defendants in Actions Actions #1&2#/&2- 283 SKJDMORE SKIDMORE & Attorneysfor LOUIZOS LOUIZOS 990 STEWART STEWART AVE, AVE, STE STE 400 400 990 GARDEN CITY, CITY, NY NY 11530 11530 GARDEN LAW OFFICES OF OF JENNIFER JENNIFER S. ADAMS ADAMS LA WOFFICES Attorneys for Defendants Defendants in Action Action#!SHAH & MASTRO MASTRO Attorneysfor #1- SHAH ONE EXECUTIVE EXECUTIVE BLVD, BLVD, STE STE 280 280 ONE YONKERS, NY NY 10701 YONKERS, 1070 I SURJS & ASSOCIATE, ASSOCIATE, P.e. P.C. SURIS Attorneys for for Plaintiff Plaintiff in Action Action #2- MASTRO MASTRO Attorneys NORTH SERVICE SERVICE RD, RD, STE STE 302 302 395 NORTH MELVILLE, NY NY 11747 11747 MELVILLE, ----------------------------------------------------------------X ----------------------------------------------,,-----------------)( Upon the following papers numbered numbered I to -..11..._n_ read read on Upon following papers Notice of Motion/ Motion/ Order Order to Show Show Cause Cause and supporting Notice of suppo1iing papers papers I stlpp0l1ing papers_, papel S_, Answering sttpporting Answering Affidavits Affidavits and supporting supporting papers papers papers (#2) ; Other ethel _, (and aftel ing eOtllisel papers 17 - 20 (#2); _, (ai,d altet heal heating eottnsel it' in stlppol1 st1pport this motion for summary summary judgment judgment & consolidation; consolidation; this-motion 9(#2) €I oss Motion 9(#2) & 21 - 27 (#03) (#03);; Notiee Notice of of Closs Motion and 10 IO - 16 (#02) (#02) ; Replying Replying Affidavits Affidavits and and supporting supporting and opposed opposed to the the motion) n10ti0n) it is, Defendants, Darshan Shah and Monica Defendants, Darshan Ramesh Ramesh Shah Monica A. Mastro, Mastro, move move for an order order granting granting summary judgment and dismissing dismissing the complaint plaintiff and summary judgment and complaint of of the plaintiff and any cross-claims cross-claims or counterclaims counterclaims of of the the defendants defendants 283 Skidmore Skidmore Road, Road, Inc., and Georgios Georgios A. Louizos. Louizos. Defendants Defendants · Skidmore Road, Road, Inc., and and Georgios Georgios A. Louizos Louizos separately separately move move for an order order consolidating consolidating the 283 Skidmore instant action action with with an action action currently currently pending pending in Supreme Supreme Court, Court, Queens Queens County County entitled entitled Monica instant Monica Mastro 283 Skidmore and Georgios Georgios Louizos, Index No. 708512/2018, 708512/2018, and for an Mastro v. 283 Skidmore Road, Road, Inc. Inc. and Louizos, Index order transferring transferring venue venue of of the the action action currently currently pending pending in Supreme Supreme Court, Court, Queens Queens County County to order Suffolk County. County. Suffolk [* 1] 1 of 5 FILED: SUFFOLK COUNTY CLERK 01/30/2019 04:37 PM NYSCEF DOC. NO. 39 INDEX NO. 609789/2018 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 01/30/2019 T Chagin Chagin v 283 Skidmore Skidmore Road, Road, et al. Index Index No. 609789/2018 60978912018 Page 2 Page2 Motion Summary Judgment Motion for Summary Judgment This This is an action action to recover recover damages damages for injuries injuries allegedly allegedly sustained sustained by plaintiff plaintiff Yurity Yurity Y. Chagin as a result result of of a motor motor vehicle vehicle accident accident which which occurred occurred on March March 30, 2018 2018 on northbound northbound Chagin Commack Road, Road, at or near near the the intersection intersection with with Burlington Burlington Avenue, Avenue, in the the Town Town of of Babylon. Babylon. The The Commack accident allegedly allegedly happened happened when when a vehicle vehicle owned owned by defendant defendant 283Skidmore 283Skidmore Road, Road, Inc., and and accident operated by defendant defendant Georgios Georgios A. Louizos Louizos struck struck a vehicle vehicle owned owned by defendant defendant Darshan Darshan Ramesh Ramesh operated Shah and operated operated by defendant defendant Monica Monica A. Mastro Mastro in the rear. As a result result of ofthe initial impact, impact, the the initial Shah vehicle operated operated by defendant defendant Monica Monica A. Mastro Mastro was was propelled forward and and struck struck plaintiff propelled forward plaintiffss vehicle vehicle plaintiff alleges vehicle in the rear. By her her complaint, complaint, plaintiff alleges that that she suffered suffered serious serious injuries injuries as a result result of of accident. the accident. defendants, Darshan Darshan Ramesh Ramesh Shah Shah and and Monica Monica A. Mastro, Mastro, now now move move for summary summary The defendants, judgment dismissing the the complaint complaint and and cross-claims cross-claims or counterclaims counterclaims as asserted asserted against against them, them, judgment dismissing arguing that that defendant defendant Georgios Georgios A. Louizos' Louizos' negligence negligence was was the the sole sole legal legal and and proximate cause of of arguing proximate cause accident. In support, support, defendant defendant Mastro Mastro submits, submits, among among other other things, things, a copy copy of of a police report, the accident. police report, own affidavit, affidavit, and and copies copies of of the pleadings. The police accident report report indicates indicates that that defendant defendant pleadings. The police accident her own Louizos Louizos stated stated "that "that he was was traveling traveling northbound northbound on Commack Commack Rd when when he saw saw the red red light light at the intersection of of Commack Commack Rd and and Burlington Burlington Ave Ave ... ... [he] states states that that he tried tried to stop stop but but his foot intersection slipped slipped off off of of the brake brake and and he struck struck vehicle vehicle 2 in the rear." rear." In opposition, opposition, the the non-moving non-moving defendants defendants submit submit an affirmation affirmation of of their their attorney attorney and an affidavit affidavit of of defendant defendant Louizos Louizos which which states states that "as venue, the "as I approached approached the the intersection intersection with with Burlington Burlington A Avenue, the traffic traffic light light was was green green ... ... I then then noticed noticed the brake brake lights lights of of the the car car traveling traveling in front front of of me were were engaged engaged and and I immediately immediately engaged engaged brakes on my truck" truck" He further further claims claims that that "I was unable unable to stop stop my truck truck before before making making contact contact the brakes with the car traveling traveling in front front of of me as she stopped stopped shortly shortly when when she had had more more room room between between her car with and the other other in front front of of her." her." Plaintiff Plaintiff has not submitted submitted any papers papers in opposition opposition to the motion. motion. and The proponent proponent of of a summary summary judgment motion must must tender tender evidentiary evidentiary proof admissible judgment motion proof in admissible Alvarez v Prospect Hosp., 68 NY2d NY2d form eliminating eliminating any material material issues issues of of fact from the case case (see Alvarez [1986]). Once Once this showing showing has been been made, made, the the burden burden shifts shifts to the 320, 508 NYS2d NYS2d 923 [1986]). non-moving party party to produce produce evidentiary evidentiary proof proof in admissible admissible form form sufficient sufficient to establish establish the non-moving existence of of material material issues issues of of fact fact that that require require a trial trial for resolution resolution (see Alvarez Alvarez v Prospect Hosp., existence supra; Zuckerman Zuckerman v City of NY2d 557, 427 NYS2d NYS2d 595 [1980]). supra; 0/ New York, 49 NY2d [1980]). A defendant judgment in a negligence burden of defendant moving moving for summary summary judgment negligence action action has has the the burden of establishing, prima prima facie, facie, that that he or she was not at fault in the happening happening of of the the subject subject accident accident (see establishing, Cook v Gomez, 138 AD3d 30 NYS3d NYS3d 148 [2d Dept Boulos v Estate of o/Cook AD3d 675, 675,30 Dept 2016]; 2016]; Boulos Lerner-Harrington, 124 AD3d NYS3d 526 [2d Dept Rungoo v Leary, 110 Lerner-Harrington, AD3d 709, 709, 2 NYS3d Dept 2015]; 2015]; Rungoo 110 AD3d NYS2d 672 [2d Dept AD3d 781, 782, 972 NYS2d Dept 2013]). 2013]). While While there there can can be more more than than one one proximate proximate cause of of an accident accident and and it is generally generally for the trier trier of of fact to determine, determine, the the issue issue of of proximate proximate cause cause cause decided as a matter matter of of law law where where only only one conclusion conclusion may may be drawn drawn from from the the established established may be decided Cook v Gomez, supra; supra; Jones v Vialva-Duke, 106 AD3d 966 NYS2d NYS2d 187 facts (see Estate of o/Cook AD3d 1052, 1052,966 [* 2] 2 of 5 FILED: SUFFOLK COUNTY CLERK 01/30/2019 04:37 PM NYSCEF DOC. NO. 39 INDEX NO. 609789/2018 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 01/30/2019 ... ..•. r Road, et al. Skidmore Road, Chagin Chagin v 283 Skidmore Index No. 609789/2018 60978912018 Index Page 3 Page Dept NYS2d 550 [2d Dept AD3d 889,922 LLC, 84 AD3d 889, 922 NYS2d Assoc., LLC, Harbor Assoc., Hungry Harbor Kalland v Hungry 2013]; Kalland Dept 2013]; [2d Dept 2011]. 2011]. rear, he or she is the rear, automobile from the When another automobile approaches another automobile approaches of an automobile driver of When the driver exercise and to exercise vehicle, her his over bound to maintain a reasonably safe rate of speed and control over his or her vehicle, and control speed of rate safe bound maintain reasonably 129[a]; l Law§ Traffic and Vehicle vehicle (see Vehicle reasonable avoid colliding colliding with other vehicle Traffic Law S 1129[a]; with the other reasonable care to avoid Rent A Car Singh vvAvis 2016]; Singh Dept 2016]; Melendez 1018,32 Avis RentA NYS3d 604 [2d Dept 32 NYS3d AD3d 1018, McCrowel/, 139 AD3d Melendez v McCrowell, AD3d Martinez, v Martinez 2014]; Dept [2d Sys., Inc., 119 AD3d 768, 989 NYS2d 302 Dept 2014]; Martinez Martinez, 93 AD3d 767, 941 AD3d 768, 989 NYS2d Sys., Inc., prima facie collision establishes NYS2d establishes a prima facie case case of of rear-end collision Accordingly, a rear-end 2012]). Accordingly, Dept 2012]). NYS2d 189 [2d Dept rebut operator that requiring thereby negligence on the part of the operator of the rear vehicle, thereby requiring that operator to rebut the vehicle, rear the of operator the of part the negligence Strickland (see collision the collision explanation for the inference Strickland v non-negligent explanation providing a non-negligent by providing negligence by of negligence inference of supra; Giangrasso Martinez, supra; Martinez v Martinez, Tirino, 99 AD3d 952 NYS2d Giangrasso v 2012]; Martinez Dept 2012]; NYS2d 599 [2d Dept AD3d 888, 952 Tirino, struck was vehicle that Evidence Callahan, 87 AD3d 521, 928 NYS2d 68 Dept 2011]). Evidence that a vehicle was struck in the 2011]). Dept [2d NYS2d AD3d 521, Callahan, explanation non-negligent explanation sufficient non-negligent provide a sufficient rear and propelled propelled into may provide of it may front of vehicle in front the vehicle into the Sol El Sol Kuris v El Dept 2016]; NYS3d 316 [2d Dept 2016]; Kuris AD3d 1060, 30 NYS3d Seenarraine, 138 AD3d Hart.field v Seenarraine, (see Hartfield Tirino, Strickland 2014]; Dept [2d 580 Contr. & Constr. Corp., 116 AD3d 675,983 NYS2d Dept 2014]; Strickland v Tirino, AD3d 675, 983 NYS2d Contr. & Constr. Corp., prima establish prima may establish vehicle may middle vehicle of the middle supra). operator of accident, the operator collision accident, chain collision Thus, in a chain supra). Thus, behind by was struck that it was facie entitlement entitlement to judgment of law law by demonstrating demonstrating that struck from from behind matter of judgment as a matter AD3d 518, Shin v Correale, Hwa Shin the rear vehicle Chuk Hwa Correale, 142 AD3d vehicle (see Chuk lead vehicle the lead into the propelled into and propelled vehicle and 2015]; Dept 2015]; 550 [2d Dept NYS3d 550 578, 19 NYS3d AD3d 578, 36 NYS3d Jones, 133 AD3d Niosi v Jones, 2016]; Niosi Dept 2016]; NYS3d 213 [2d Dept supra). Kuris Contr. & Constr. Constr. Corp., Corp., supra). Sol Contr. El Sol Kuris v El was Mastro was Monica A. Mastro that Monica facie, that prima facie, Here, the moving establish, prima submissions establish, defendants' submissions moving defendants' negligence Louizos' A. Georgios that defendant not at fault for the happening of the accident, and that defendant Georgios Louizos' negligence the accident, happening of Boulos v supra; Boulos of Cook Estate of was the sole proximate Cook v Gomez, Gomez, supra; accident (see Estate the accident of the cause of proximate cause Mastro Monica of affidavit The supra). Lerner-Harrington, supra; Jones v Vialva-Duke, supra). The affidavit of Monica Mastro Vialva-Duke, Jones Lerner-Harrington, supra; Louizos vehicle operated the vehicle behind by the demonstrates that struck from from behind operated by Louizos and was struck vehicle was her vehicle that her demonstrates between the collision between the collision explanation for the propelled non-negligent explanation providing a non-negligent vehicle, providing plaintiffss vehicle, propelled into plaintiff supra; Correale, v Shin Hwa Chuk (see vehicle Shah Chuk Hwa Shin Correale, supra; plaintiffs vehicle and plaintiffs vehicle and defendants' vehicle Mastro defendants' Shah and Mastro time that "at Mastro states Monica Mastro supra). Monica Tirino, supra). Hartfield states that "at the time Strickland v Tirino, supra; Strickland Seenarraine, supra; Hartfield v Seenarraine, bring able was ... vehicle plaintiffs behind of the accident I was stopped for a red light behind plaintiffs vehicle ... I was able to bring my light red accident was stopped of plaintiffs behind plaintiffs stopped behind completely stopped was completely vehicle ... my vehicle vehicle was stop ... gradual stop and gradual controlled and vehicle to a controlled rear by codefendant's was struck vehicle approximately one second second when struck in the rear codefendant's vehicle was when my vehicle vehicle for approximately vehicle." vehicle." matter of judgment as a matter entitlement to judgment Here, defendants established established a prima of prima facie entitlement moving defendants Here, the moving to form admissible in evidence admissible proffer evidence law. The codefendants required to proffer then required were then plaintiff were and plaintiff codefendants and submitted an have submitted codefendants have The codefendants show of fact. The issue of of any issue trial of require a trial sufficient to require show facts sufficient motion therefore and completed been not affirmation of their attorney alleging that discovery has not been completed and therefore the motion discovery affirmation of their attorney alleging that knowledge of personal knowledge should be denied. from an attorney attorney having of the facts is having no personal affirmation from The affirmation denied. The should Zuckerman v fact (see Zuckerman of fact issue of triable issue raise a triable without insufficient to raise thus, is insufficient and, thus, value and, evidentiary value without evidentiary [* 3] 3 of 5 FILED: SUFFOLK COUNTY CLERK 01/30/2019 04:37 PM NYSCEF DOC. NO. 39 r(" INDEX NO. 609789/2018 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 01/30/2019 Chagin v 283 Skidmore Skidmore Road, Road, et al. Chagin 60978912018 Index No. 609789/2018 Page4 Page 4 of New York, supra). The affidavit affidavit of of defendant defendant Louizos Louizos similarly similarly fails to raise raise a triable triable issue issue City of New York, supra). The of fact. Furthermore, Furthermore, in view view of of the the fact that that defendant defendant Louizos Louizos had had personal personal knowledge knowledge of of the the of relevant facts underlying underlying the the accident, accident, the codefendants codefendants purported purported need need to conduct conduct discovery discovery does does relevant warrant denial denial of of the the motion motion (see Emil & Son, Transp., Inc., AD3d 368, 368, Emil Norsic Norsic & Son, Inc. Inc. v L.P. L.P. Transp., Inc., 30 AD3d not warrant 815 NYS2d NYS2d 736 [2d Dept Dept 2006]). 2006]). addition, as plaintiff plaintiff submits submits no papers papers in opposition opposition to the moving moving defendants' defendants' motion, motion, In addition, raise any triable triable issues issues of of fact (see see Alvarez supra; Zuckerman Alvarez v Prospect Prospect Hosp., Hosp., supra; Zuckerman she too fails to raise v City of of New York, supra). the opposing opposing parties parties fail to submit submit admissible admissible evidence evidence that that the New York, supra). As the moving defendants defendants were were contributorily contributorily negligent, negligent, they they fail to rebut rebut the the moving moving defendants' defendants' prima prima moving showing that that defendant defendant Louizos' Louizos' negligence negligence was the sole proximate proximate cause cause of of the the accident accident (see facie showing Estate of Estate of Cook Cook v Gomez, Gomez, supra; Jones v Vialva-Duke, Vialva-Duke, supra). supra). supra; Boulos Boulos v Lerner-Harrington, Lerner-Harrington, supra; supra; Jones light of of the the foregoing, foregoing, the the moving moving defendants' defendants's s motion motion for summary summary judgment granted. In light judgment is granted. Counsel for the the movants movants shall shall serve serve a copy copy of of this order order upon upon counsel counsel for the the plaintiff plaintiff and and Counsel codefendants and upon upon the the Calendar Calendar Clerk Clerk of of this this court court within within twenty twenty (20) (20) days days from from the the date of of this codefendants order. Motion to Consolidate Motion Consolidate The plaintiffs plaintiffs in these these actions actions seek seek recovery recovery of of damages damages for personal personal injuries injuries sustained sustained as the result result of of a chain chain reaction reaction motor motor vehicle. vehicle. With respect respect to a change change in venue, venue, CPLR CPLR 503 (a) provides, provides, in relevant relevant part, part, as With follows: (a) Generally. Generally. Except Except where where otherwise otherwise prescribed prescribed by law, the the follows: place of of trial trial shall shall be in the the county county in which which one one of of the parties parties resided resided place when when it was was commenced; commenced; or, if if none none of of the parties parties then then resided resided in the state, state, in any county county designated designated by the plaintiff. plaintiff. A party party resident resident in more more than than one county county shall shall be deemed deemed a resident resident of of each each such such county. county. one CPLR CPLR 510 provides provides as follows: follows: Grounds Grounds for change change of of place place of of trial trial The court, court, upon upon motion, motion, may may change change the place place of of trial trial of of an action action where: where: The 1. the the county county designated designated for that that purpose purpose is not not a proper proper county; county; or2. there there is reason to believe believe that that an impartial impartial trial trial cannot cannot be had had in the the proper county; or3. reason proper county; justice will the the convenience convenience of of material material witnesses witnesses and the ends ends of of justice will be promoted promoted by the the change change Considering all of ofthe above, including including the fact that that the instant instant plaintiff plaintiff commenced commenced this this the above, Considering action plaintiff have action first and the the Queens Queens County County plaintiff have not not opposed opposed this this application, application, this this Court Court finds finds that that the ends ends of of justice will best best be served served by transferring transferring the matter matter currently currently pending pending in Supreme Supreme Court, Court, justice will Queens County County to Supreme Supreme Court, Court, Suffolk Suffolk County. County. Accordingly, Accordingly, defendants' defendants' application application for a Queens change of of venue venue is granted. granted. change CPLR CPLR § 9 602(a) 602(a) provides provides that that "[w]hen "[w]hen actions actions involving involving a common common question question of of law law or fact are pending before before a court, court, the the court, court, upon upon motion, motion, may order order a joint trial of of any or all of of the the matters matters in pending joint trial [* 4] 4 of 5 INDEX NO. 609789/2018 FILED: SUFFOLK COUNTY CLERK 01/30/2019 04:37 PM NYSCEF DOC. NO. 39 t". RECEIVED NYSCEF: 01/30/2019 Chagin Skidmore Road, Chagin v 283 Skidmore Road, et al. Index No. 609789/2018 609789/2018 Page 5 issue, may order order the actions consolidated, and may make make such such other other orders orders concerning concerning proceedings proceedings actions consolidated, therein avoid unnecessary unnecessary costs costs or delay." delay." therein as may tend tend to avoid Since same incident incident and involve involve common common questions questions of of fact, ajoint a joint Since the actions actions arise arise from the same trial is appropriate verdicts. Accordingly Accordingly the for a joint joint trial is granted. granted. The appropriate to avoid avoid inconsistent inconsistent verdicts. motion renew andreargue denied as moot. motion to renew and,reargue is denied Accordingly it is, Accordingly ORDERED that this this unopposed unopposed motion motion by defendants defendants 283 Skidmore Road, Inc., and ORDERED that Skidmore Road, Georgios A. A Louizos consolidating the instant Louizos for an order order consolidating instant action action with with an action action currently currently pending pending in Georgios Supreme entitled Monica Mastro v. v. 283 Skidmore Skidmore Road, Inc. and Georgios Supreme Court, Court, Queens Queens County County entitled Index No. 708512/2018, 708512/2018, is hereby hereby granted granted to the extent extent that that the actions actions will be jointly jointly tried, tried, Louizos, Index of the provided that each joined joined action when called called therefor therefor by Presiding Presiding Justice Justice of provided action is ready for trial when Calendar Part; and it is further Calendar Control Control Part; further ORDERED, that venue in the action Supreme Court, ORDERED, that venue action currently currently pending pending in Supreme Court, Queens Queens County County v. 283 283 Skidmore Skidmore Road, Inc. and Georgios Louizos, Louizos, Index Index No. entitled entitled Monica Mastro v. 708512/2018, including all pending pending motions motions and applications, applications, is transferred transferred forthwith forthwith to Supreme 708512/2018, including Supreme Court, Suffolk Suffolk County; County; and it is further Court, further ORDERED, that the movants movants shall serve serve a copy copy of of this this Order Order pursuant pursuant to CPLR CPLR 2103 upon upon ORDERED, that of Suffolk County and the Clerk Clerk of of the Supreme Court of of Queens Queens the Clerk of of the Supreme Supreme Court Court of Suffolk County Supreme Court County by overnight overnight mail; County mail; and it is further further ORDERED, that Supreme Court ORDERED, that the Clerk Clerk of of the Supreme Court of of Queens Queens County County is directed directed forthwith forthwith to transfer the entire entire case case and file to the Clerk Supreme Court Suffolk County; of the Supreme Court of of Suffolk County; and it is further further transfer Clerk of ORDERED each action ORDERED that that each action joined joined for trial shall retain retain aseparate a separate caption caption and separate separate court court paid in each each action, action, including of motions, motions, Notes Notes of of costs shall be paid including those those costs costs attendant attendant with with the filing filing of Issue and Certificates Certificates of of Readiness Readiness for Trial; Trial; and it is further further 'ORDERED ORDERED that that all motions motions interposed interposed in each each joined joined action action shall shall bear bear a single single caption caption reflecting the action action in which reflecting which said motion motion is made; made; however, however, all motions motions shall shall be served served upon upon counsel for all parties appearing in each counsel parties appearing each joined joined action; action; and it is further further The foregoing The foregoing constitutes constitutes the the decision decision and and Order Order of of this this Court. Court. _ __ Dated: January January 28, 28,2019 Dated: 2019 H A.-SANTORELLI A SANTORELLI J.S.C. [* 5] 5 of 5

Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.