# Cross & Brown Co. v. Cimbar Corp.

> Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · February 21, 1949 · 275 A.D.2d 680

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/6056298

## Case

- **Full name:** Cross & Brown Company v. Cimbar Corporation, Ada Stoothoff, Doing Business as Branham Real Estate v. Cimbar Corporation
- **Court:** Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York
- **Decided:** February 21, 1949
- **Citations:** 275 A.D.2d 680
- **Precedential status:** Published
- **Opinion:** Opinion of the court
- **Cited by:** 0 later opinions in the Frix Law Library

## Citator (automated)

- No negative treatment found by the automated citator. That is not the same as a confirmation that the case is good law; read the citing cases.
- Full citator and citing cases: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/6056298

## Opinion text

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.

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/6056298. Public record. Not legal advice.