Rent Stabilization Ass'n v. New York State Division of Housing & Community Renewal, 252 A.D.2d 111 (1998)

We next find that Supreme Court should also have granted respondent’s motion to consolidate this action with the separate action commenced by the City in New York County as there is a clear identity of issues between the two controversies; namely, the validity of Local Law No. 73 (see, CPLR 602; Government Empls. Ins. Co. v Uniroyal Goodrich Tire Co., 242 AD2d 765, 766). As a general rule, upon consolidation of two actions commenced in different counties, venue is placed in the county having jurisdiction over the action first commenced absent “special circumstances” (see, id.). We find that special circumstances do exist warranting venue to be set in New York County. While the petition challenges actions taken by respondent following the enactment of Local Law No. 73, it is clear *116that petitioners are really seeking to invalidate Local Law No. 73 and that their claims against respondent rise and fall on the resolution of this threshold issue. It is equally clear that petitioners should have commenced a declaratory judgment action against the City in New York County in the first instance (see, CPLR 504 [3]) and included respondent as a party to that action.2