Farrell v. Lautob Realty Corp.Farrell v. Lautob Realty Corp.
—In three separate actions to recover damages for personal injuries and wrongful death, the defendants 860 Broadway Corporation and Ronna Juliano, appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Vinik, J.), entered August 19, 1992, which, inter alia, denied their motions for a change of venue to Westchester County, granted the respective cross motions of the plaintiffs Richard Lyncook and Rhoda Wells to retain venue in Kings County, and granted the motion of the plaintiff Yvonne Farrell for a joint trial.
Ordered that the order is affirmed, with one bill of costs payable to the respondents appearing separately and filing separate briefs.
This appeal involves three separate civil actions stemming from a shooting incident which occurred outside the Underground, a Manhattan nightclub, on the night of December 30, 1989. As a result of the shootings two people were killed and one was seriously injured. Osbourne Warner (hereinafter Warner), a defendant in Actions No. 1 and No. 2, is currently serving a prison term for the commission of these crimes.
Subsequently, the plaintiff in Action No. 1 moved to consolidate all three actions for purposes of a joint trial; three of the defendants, 860 Broadway Corporation, Ronna Juliano, and Lautob Realty Corp., moved to change venue to Westchester County; and the plaintiffs in Actions No. 2 and No. 3 cross-moved to retain venue in Kings County. In an order entered August 19, 1992, the Supreme Court granted the motion to consolidate for the purpose of a joint trial, denied the motions to change venue, and granted the cross motion to retain venue in Kings County. We now affirm.
Contrary to the appellants’ contention, Kings County is not an improper venue because service of process was effected upon Warner while he was in prison on Rikers Island. It is undisputed that Warner was a resident of Kings County prior to his incarceration for the instant crimes, and it is long-established law in New York that a person does not involuntarily lose his domicile as a result of imprisonment (see, People v Cady,
Moreover, the only material witness who has been identified thus far is a resident of Kings County and the defendants have failed to demonstrate what nexus, if any, these actions have to Westchester County (see, Strasser v Neuringer,
We also note that, under the facts and circumstances