At page 1088 Warranting joint trial when common questions of law exist12 citing casessingle action under a single caption (see generally Mascioni v Consolidated R. R. Corp., 94 AD2d 738, 739 [1983]; Brian Wallach Agency v Bank of N.Y., 75 AD2d…
- Longo v. Fogg, 150 A.D.3d 724 (N.Y. App. Div. 2d Dep't 2017).publishedWhere common questions of law or fact exist, a motion to consolidate or for a joint trial pursuant to CPLR 602 (a) should be granted absent a showing of prejudice to a substantial right by the party opposing the motion (see Brown v Cope Be…
- Korn v. Korn, 135 A.D.3d 1023 (N.Y. App. Div. 3d Dep't 2016).published Thus, the court did not effectuate a true consolidation of the actions, but rather joined the actions for trial (see Troutman Sanders, LLP v Parker, 111 AD3d 924, 925 [2013]; Alizio v Perpignano, 78 AD3d 1087, 1087-1088 [2010]; Matter of A…
- Cnty. of Westchester v. White Plains Avenue, LLC, 105 A.D.3d 690 (N.Y. App. Div. 2d Dep't 2013).published “Where common questions of law or fact exist, a motion to consolidate or for a joint trial pursuant to CPLR 602 (a) should be granted absent a showing of prejudice to a substantial right by the party opposing the motion” (Perini Corp. v WD…
- Clark v. Clark, 93 A.D.3d 812 (N.Y. App. Div. 2d Dep't 2012).publishedWhen there are common questions of law or fact, a joint trial is warranted unless the opposing party demonstrates prejudice to a substantial right” (Alizio v Perpignano, 78 AD3d 1087, 1088 [2010] [citations and internal quotation marks omi…
- Am. Home Mortg. Servicing, Inc. v. Sharrocks, 92 A.D.3d 620 (N.Y. App. Div. 2d Dep't 2012).publishedWhere common questions of law or fact exist, consolidation is warranted unless the opposing party demonstrates prejudice to a substantial right (see Alizio v Perpignano, 78 AD3d 1087, 1088 [2010]; Pierre-Louis v DeLonghi Am., Inc., 66 AD3d…
- Ijezie v. Rozenberg, 2024 NY Slip Op 30347(U) (N.Y. Sup. Ct., New York Cty. 2024).unpublishedNonetheless, to avoid confusion, the court concludes that the actions should not be fully consolidated since full consolidation would result in a party being both a plaintiff and a defendant in the same action (see Geneva Temps, Inc. v New…
- Bermejo v. New York City Health & Hospitals Corp., 133 A.D.3d 808 (N.Y. App. Div. 2d Dep't 2015).publishedServicing, Inc. v Sharrocks, 92 AD3d 620, 622 [2012]; see Alizio v Perpignano, 78 AD3d 1087, 1088 [2010]; Pierre-Louis v DeLonghi Am., Inc., 66 AD3d 855, 856 [2009]; Glussi v Fortune Brands, 276 AD2d 586 [2000]).
- Scotto v. Kodsi, 102 A.D.3d 947 (N.Y. App. Div. 2d Dep't 2013).published Servicing, Inc. v Sharrocks, 92 AD3d at 622 ; see Alizio v Perpignano, 78 AD3d 1087, 1088 [2010]; Pierre-Louis v DeLonghi Am., Inc., 66 AD3d 855, 856 [2009]; Glussi v Fortune Brands, 276 AD2d 586 [2000]).
- Brown v. Cope Bestway Express, Inc., 99 A.D.3d 746 (N.Y. App. Div. 4th Dep't 2012).published “Where common questions of law or fact exist, a motion to consolidate or for a joint trial pursuant to CPLR 602 (a) should be granted absent a showing of prejudice to a substantial right by the party opposing the motion” (Perini Corp. v WD…
At page 1087 Distinguishing joining actions from consolidating them2 citing casesIn related actions, inter alia, to recover damages for fraud and breach of contract (action No. 6), the plaintiffs appeal from an order of the Supreme Court,…
- Korn v. Korn, 135 A.D.3d 1023 (N.Y. App. Div. 3d Dep't 2016).published Thus, the court did not effectuate a true consolidation of the actions, but rather joined the actions for trial (see Troutman Sanders, LLP v Parker, 111 AD3d 924, 925 [2013]; Alizio v Perpignano, 78 AD3d 1087, 1087-1088 [2010]; Matter of A…
- Sample v. Temkin, 87 A.D.3d 686 (N.Y. App. Div. 2d Dep't 2011).published Kneper was not a party in the Sample action, and although the actions were joined for trial, they were not consolidated into a single action (see CPLR 602 [a]; Alizio v Perpignano, 78 AD3d 1087, 1087-1088 [2010]).
v.
Peter Robert Perpignano, (Action No. 1.) P.J. Alizio Realty, Inc. v. Lillian Eisenberg, (And a Third-Party Action.) (Action No. 2.) Irving Eisenberg v. P.J. Alizio, Inc., (Action No. 3.) Anthony Alizio v. Gregory Ronan, (Action No. 4.) Irving Eisenberg v. P.J. Alizio, Inc., (Action No. 5.) Oceanview Realty, LLC v. Anthony Alizio, , (Action No. 6.)
In related actions, inter alia, to recover damages for fraud and breach of contract (action No. 6), the plaintiffs appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Nassau County (Bucaria, J.), entered October 1, 2009, which granted those branches of the motion of the defendant Anthony Alizio, joined by the defendants Joseph Alizio and Lillian Eisenberg, as administrator of the estate of Irving Eisenberg, which were pursuant to CPLR 602 (a) to transfer the venue of this action from Queens County to Nassau County and thereupon to join for trial this action with an action entitled Alizio v Perpignano (action No. 1), pending in the Supreme Court, Nassau County, under index No. 19181/03, and four related actions (action Nos. 2, 3, 4 and 5) also pending in the Supreme Court, Nassau County, all of which had previously been joined for trial.
Ordered that the order is affirmed, with one bill of costs payable by the appellants to the respondents.
Initially, we note that the defendant Anthony Alizio (hereinafter the defendant) moved in action No. 6, inter alia, for an order “consolidating and/or joining” the instant action with certain actions pending in the Supreme Court, Nassau County, which had previously been joined for trial, and the Supreme Court granted the branch of the motion which was for a joint trial, rather than the alternative branch which was for consolidation. In the order appealed from, the Supreme Court left each of the actions intact and did not completely consolidate them into a[*1088] single action under a single caption (see generally Mascioni v Consolidated R. R. Corp., 94 AD2d 738, 739 [1983]; Brian Wallach Agency v Bank of N.Y., 75 AD2d 878, 879 [1980]; Padilla v Greyhound Lines, 29 AD2d 495, 497 [1968]; see also Alexander, Practice Commentaries, McKinney’s Cons Laws of NY, Book 7B, CPLR C602:2).
“[A] motion seeking a joint trial pursuant to CPLR 602 (a) rests within the sound discretion of the trial court” (Glussi v Fortune Brands, 276 AD2d 586, 587 [2000]; see J & A Vending v Eagle & Fein, 268 AD2d 505, 506 [2000]). When there are common questions of law or fact, a joint trial is warranted unless the opposing party demonstrates prejudice to a substantial right (see Pierre-Louis v DeLonghi Am., Inc., 66 AD3d 855, 856 [2009]; Glussi v Fortune Brands, 276 AD2d at 587; Ryckman v Schlessinger-Levi-Polatsch-Tydings, 225 AD2d 603 [1996]).
Here, the Supreme Court did not improvidéntly exercise its discretion in granting that branch of Anthony Alizio’s motion which was for a joint trial because the several actions involve common questions of law and fact. Therefore, the interests of justice and judicial economy would be served by a joint trial (see Glussi v Fortune Brands, 276 AD2d at 587; J & A Vending v Eagle & Fein, 268 AD2d at 506). Furthermore, the plaintiffs’ unsubstantiated claim that a joint trial would be “unwieldy” was not sufficient to satisfy the burden of demonstrating prejudice to a substantial right (see Whiteman v Parsons Transp. Group of N.Y., Inc., 72 AD3d 677, 678 [2010]; Perini Corp. v WDF, Inc., 33 AD3d 605, 606 [2006]).
The plaintiffs’ remaining contention is without merit. Covello, J.P., Dickerson, Belen and Lott, JJ., concur.