Babylon Associates v. County of SuffolkBabylon Associates v. County of Suffolk
OPINION OF THE COURT
Plаintiff Babylon Associates contracted with defendant, the County of Suffolk, to perform the genеral construction work on the Bergen Point Water Pollution Control Plant. That plant was one of the principal' facilities of the Suffolk County Southwest Sewer District project (“the project”). Although a county must normally be sued in that county
Babylon stresses that there have been thousands of articles written about the scandal in the Long Islаnd Press. It further emphasized that one of its sub-subcontractors and its officials have been cоnvicted of conspiracy to defraud in the Federal District Court. Babylon notes that the Apрellate Division, Second Department, has already transferred a State criminal prоceeding from Suffolk to Queens County. Other civil actions, arising from the project, are pеnding in Suffolk. These cases are generating further public interest in the scandal. Finally, Babylon points to a Century poll, which it commissioned. That poll concludes that Babylon cannot obtаin an impartial trial in Suffolk because of the public bias against private contractors, public officials and others connected with the project.
After weighing all the factоrs involved, Special Term granted plaintiff’s cross motion to retain venue in New York on the principal ground that private contractors had been the subject of many adverse news articles in the Suffolk press. Correspondingly, it denied defendant’s motion to change venue.
The purpose of the venue requirement of CPLR 504 (subd 1) is to protect a county and its officials from inconvenience. In the absence of compelling circumstances, venue should remain in the county that is sued (Powers v East Hudson Parkway Auth.,
In this proceeding, Suffolk’s pollster has challenged the reliability of the Century poll. The record contains a technicаl battle between the parties’ experts on the fine points of taking a public opiniоn survey. As is normally the case,
At present, therе are several other civil actions pending in Suffolk and more cases will soon be filed. It is рossible that the Justices of the Supreme Court in Suffolk could reach a consensus that the cases arising from the project should be transferred to a different county. It is also possible that the Appellate Division, Second Department, might eventually order all such cases to be tried in another county. Under those eventualities, this action would then stand alone in Suffоlk County. Therefore, in order to prevent this case from being isolated from the remainder of the cases arising from the project and for the sake of judicial economy, this transfеr will be made without prejudice to Babylon’s right to move in Suffolk to change venue if all other сases be transferred from Suffolk.
Accordingly, the order of the Supreme Court, New York County (Lane, J.), entered February 3,1982, which denied Suffolk’s motion to change venue and granted Babylon’s cross mоtion to retain venue, should be reversed, on the law and the facts, the motion should be grantеd and the cross motion denied without prejudice to Babylon’s right to move in Suffolk for a changе of venue if all other cases arising from the project be transferred from Suffolk, with costs.
Murphy, P. J., Sullivan, Carro and Milonas, JJ., concur.
Order, Supreme Court, New York County, entered on February 3, 1982, unanimously reversed, on the law and the faсts, the motion granted and the cross motion denied without prejudice to Babylon’s right to move in Suffolk for a change of venue if all other cases arising from the project