On June 23, 2022, Justice Chan of the New York County Commercial Division issued a decision in Pappas v. Kefalas, 2022 NY Slip Op. 31979(U), holding that absent special circumstances, two actions should be consolidated in the venue of the first-filed action, explaining:
Under CPLR 602 (a), when actions involve a common question of law or fact the court, upon motion, may order a joint trial or consolidation of any or all the matters in issue to avoid unnecessary costs or delay. Here, it is undisputed that consolidation is appropriate because of common issues of law and fact surrounding the financial and accounting issues raised in the New York and Nassau County actions. At issue is whether the venue of the consolidated actions should be in this court or in the Supreme Court, Nassau County.
Absent special circumstances, two actions should be consolidated in the venue where the first action was commenced. Special circumstances warranting departure from the first filed rule have been found when the county of the later commenced action is the location of the underlying events, the residence of majority of witnesses and of the evidence, and/or where the consolidated action can be most efficiently handled and tried.
Here, the court finds that no special circumstances exist to justify deviating from the first filed rule. First, while-the parties are not New York residents, venue is proper in New York County as the location where a substantial part of the events or omissions giving rise to the claims occurred. Specifically, the Manhattan property, which is one of the three properties at issue, is located on Maiden Lane in New York County. Additionally, numerous New York County based entities were involved in the property including lawyers, consultants, engineers, brokers, and lenders, and it is alleged that there are more than $5 million in damages related to the Manhattan property. Thus, the facts here are unlike those in Lopez v Chaliwit (268 AD2d at 377) on which defendants rely. The court in Lopez, a personal injury case, deviated from the first filed rule because the county where the second action was filed was the location of all prospective nonparty witnesses and was also the site of plaintiffs accident and most of her ensuing medical treatment.
(Internal quotations and citations omitted).