Already have an account? Sign in instead.
You stay signed in for 30 days on this browser.
Continue with Google Continue with MicrosoftNo account yet? Create a free one.
We sent a six-digit code.
It expires in ten minutes, works once, and only in this browser. Five wrong tries void it. Send another code.
Your account is live and the Cloudflare checks are off for this browser.
31 New York opinions name it 2 courts 1968–2025 4 in the last five years
The cases below were cited by New York courts in a sentence that names this issue. Sides come from how each citing opinion treated the case (Syfertize flag on that citation), so a case can appear on both: that is where the law is contested. A red or yellow chip is the case's own overall treatment.
| Case | Followed | Cited |
|---|---|---|
Brown v. Cope Bestway Express, Inc.green2 sentences2025"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" ( Longo v Fogg , 150 AD3d 724, 725 ; see Brown v Cope Bestway Express, Inc. , 99 AD3d 746 ). 2025"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" ( Longo v Fogg , 150 AD3d 724, 725 ; see Brown v Cope Bestway Express, Inc. , 99 AD3d 746, 748 ). | 8 | 10 |
Perini Corp. v. WDF, Inc.green2 sentences2013“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 WDF, Inc., 33 AD3d 605, 606 [2006]; see Brown v Cope Bestway Express, Inc., 99 AD3d 746, 747-748 [2012]; Alizio v Perpignano, 78 AD3d 1087, 1088 [2010]; Mas-Edwards v Ultimate Servs., Inc., 45 AD3d 540 [2007]). 2013“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 WDF, Inc., 33 AD3d 605, 606 [2006]; see Brown v Cope Bestway Express, Inc., 99 AD3d 746, 747-748 [2012]; Alizio v Perpignano, 78 AD3d 1087, 1088 [2010]; Mas-Edwards v Ultimate Servs., Inc., 45 AD3d 540 [2007]). | 7 | 7 |
Alizio v. Perpignanogreen2 sentences2017Where 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 Bestway Express, Inc., 99 AD3d 746 [2012]; Alizio v Perpignano, 78 AD3d 1087, 1088 [2010]; Mas-Edwards v Ultimate Servs., Inc., 45 AD3d 540 [2007]). 2013“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 WDF, Inc., 33 AD3d 605, 606 [2006]; see Brown v Cope Bestway Express, Inc., 99 AD3d 746, 747-748 [2012]; Alizio v Perpignano, 78 AD3d 1087, 1088 [2010]; Mas-Edwards v Ultimate Servs., Inc., 45 AD3d 540 [2007]). | 6 | 6 |
Glussi v. Fortune Brands, Inc.green2 sentences2014The determination of 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]). 2014The determination of 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]). | 4 | 4 |
Pierre-Louis v. DeLonghi America, Inc.green2 sentences2014“When there are common questions of law or fact, a joint trial is warranted unless the opposing party demonstrates prejudice to a substantial right” (Pierre-Louis v DeLonghi Am., Inc., 66 AD3d 855, 856 [2009]). “ ‘The mere desire to have one’s dispute heard separately does not, by itself, constitute a “substantial right” ’ ” (Lingfei Sun v City of New York, 99 AD3d 673 , 675 [2012], cert denied 571 US —, 134 S Ct 92 [2013], quoting Matter of Vigo S. S. Corp. [Marship Corp. of Monrovia], 26 NY2d 157, 162 [1970], cert denied sub nom. 2014“When there are common questions of law or fact, a joint trial is warranted unless the opposing party demonstrates prejudice to a substantial right” (Pierre-Louis v DeLonghi Am., Inc., 66 AD3d 855, 856 [2009]). “ ‘The mere desire to have one’s dispute heard separately does not, by itself, constitute a “substantial right” ’ ” (Lingfei Sun v City of New York, 99 AD3d 673 , 675 [2012], cert denied 571 US —, 134 S Ct 92 [2013], quoting Matter of Vigo S. S. Corp. [Marship Corp. of Monrovia], 26 NY2d 157, 162 [1970], cert denied sub nom. | 4 | 4 |
Spector v. Zuckermanngreen2 sentences2009“Absent a showing of prejudice, a motion ... for a joint trial pursuant to CPLR 602 (a) should be granted where common questions of law or fact exist” (Spector v Zuckermann, 287 AD2d 704, 706 [2001]). 2002Absent a showing of prejudice, a motion to consolidate actions or for a joint trial pursuant to CPLR 602 (a) should be granted where there are common questions of law or fact (see, Spector v Zuckermann, 287 AD2d 704 ; Mattia v Food Emporium, 259 AD2d 527 ). | 3 | 3 |
Castro v. Durbangreen2 sentences2020Co. v RPE, LLC , 115 AD3d 717 , 718; see Castro v Durban , 129 AD3d 652, 653 ; Brown v Cope Bestway Express, Inc. , 99 AD3d 746, 748 ). 2016Co. v RPE, LLC, 115 AD3d 717 , 718 [2014]; see Castro v Durban, 129 AD3d 652, 653 [2015]; Brown v Cope Bestway Express, Inc., 99 AD3d 746, 748 [2012]). | 2 | 2 |
Taddeo-Amendola v. 970 Assets, LLCgreen2 sentences2014Group of N.Y., Inc., 72 AD3d 677, 678 [2010]; Schneider v Massi, 88 AD2d 619, 620 [1982]). 2014Group of N.Y., Inc., 72 AD3d 677, 678 [2010]; Schneider v Massi, 88 AD2d 619, 620 [1982]). | 2 | 2 |
Schneider v. Massigreen2 sentences2014Group of N.Y., Inc., 72 AD3d 677, 678 [2010]; Schneider v Massi, 88 AD2d 619, 620 [1982]). 2014Group of N.Y., Inc., 72 AD3d 677, 678 [2010]; Schneider v Massi, 88 AD2d 619, 620 [1982]). | 2 | 2 |
In re the Arbitration between Vigo Steamship Corp.green2 sentences2014“When there are common questions of law or fact, a joint trial is warranted unless the opposing party demonstrates prejudice to a substantial right” (Pierre-Louis v DeLonghi Am., Inc., 66 AD3d 855, 856 [2009]). “ ‘The mere desire to have one’s dispute heard separately does not, by itself, constitute a “substantial right” ’ ” (Lingfei Sun v City of New York, 99 AD3d 673 , 675 [2012], cert denied 571 US —, 134 S Ct 92 [2013], quoting Matter of Vigo S. S. Corp. [Marship Corp. of Monrovia], 26 NY2d 157, 162 [1970], cert denied sub nom. 2014“When there are common questions of law or fact, a joint trial is warranted unless the opposing party demonstrates prejudice to a substantial right” (Pierre-Louis v DeLonghi Am., Inc., 66 AD3d 855, 856 [2009]). “ ‘The mere desire to have one’s dispute heard separately does not, by itself, constitute a “substantial right” ’ ” (Lingfei Sun v City of New York, 99 AD3d 673 , 675 [2012], cert denied 571 US —, 134 S Ct 92 [2013], quoting Matter of Vigo S. S. Corp. [Marship Corp. of Monrovia], 26 NY2d 157, 162 [1970], cert denied sub nom. | 2 | 2 |
Nigro v. Pickettgreen2 sentences2012When consolidation or joint trials are ordered under CPLR 602 (a), venue should generally be placed in the county where the first action was commenced (see Nigro v Pickett, 39 AD3d 720, 722 [2007]). 2012When consolidation or joint trials are ordered under CPLR 602 (a), venue should generally be placed in the county where the first action was commenced (see Nigro v Pickett, 39 AD3d 720, 722 [2007]). | 2 | 2 |
J & A Vending, Inc. v. J.A.M. Vending, Inc.green2 sentences2010Corp., 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]). 2000Vending, 268 AD2d 505 ; Mattia v Food Emporium, 259 AD2d 527 ; Fransen v Maniscalco, 256 AD2d 305, 306 ) and, absent prejudice, may be granted in the interest of judicial economy where common issues of law or fact exist (see, Rahman v Miller, 257 AD2d 654 ; Fransen v Maniscalco, supra, at 306 ). | 1 | 2 |
Scarola Zubatov Schaffzin PLLC v. Dynamic Credit Partners, LLCgreen1 sentence2024A trial court has broad discretion in determining whether to order consolidation." (Hershfeld v JM Woodworth Risk Retention Group, Inc., 164 AD3d 1423 , 1424 [2nd Dept 2018] [internal citations and quotation marks omitted]; see also Scarola Zubatov Schaffzin PLLC v. Dynamic Credit Partners, LLC, 210 AD3d 605 , 607 [1st Dept 2022]) 150664/2018 FARFAN GONZALES, TOMAS vs. | 1 | 1 |
DAIJ, Inc. v. Rothgreen1 sentence2012“Pursuant to CPLR 3211 (a) (4), a court has broad discretion in determining whether an action should be dismissed based upon another pending action where there is a substantial identity of the parties, the two actions are sufficiently similar, and the relief sought is substantially the same” (DAIJ, Inc. v Roth, 85 AD3d 959, 959 [2011]; see Whitney v Whitney, 57 NY2d 731, 732 [1982]). | 1 | 1 |
Whitney v. Whitneygreen1 sentence2012“Pursuant to CPLR 3211 (a) (4), a court has broad discretion in determining whether an action should be dismissed based upon another pending action where there is a substantial identity of the parties, the two actions are sufficiently similar, and the relief sought is substantially the same” (DAIJ, Inc. v Roth, 85 AD3d 959, 959 [2011]; see Whitney v Whitney, 57 NY2d 731, 732 [1982]). | 1 | 1 |
Padilla v. Greyhound Lines, Inc.green1 sentence2010Corp., 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]). | 1 | 1 |
Brian Wallach Agency, Inc. v. Bankgreen1 sentence2010Corp., 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]). | 1 | 1 |
| Harbor Marine Contracting Corp. v. City of New Rochellegreen | 1 | 1 |
| Gutman v. Kleingreen | 1 | 1 |
| Mideal Homes Corp. v. L & C Concrete Work, Inc.green | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in New York. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Mas-Edwards v. Ultimate Services, Inc.
green
2 sentences2017Where 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 Bestway Express, Inc., 99 AD3d 746 [2012]; Alizio v Perpignano, 78 AD3d 1087, 1088 [2010]; Mas-Edwards v Ultimate Servs., Inc., 45 AD3d 540 [2007]). 2013“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 WDF, Inc., 33 AD3d 605, 606 [2006]; see Brown v Cope Bestway Express, Inc., 99 AD3d 746, 747-748 [2012]; Alizio v Perpignano, 78 AD3d 1087, 1088 [2010]; Mas-Edwards v Ultimate Servs., Inc., 45 AD3d 540 [2007]). | 7 | 2012–2017 |
Longo v. Fogg
green
2 sentences2025"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" ( Longo v Fogg , 150 AD3d 724, 725 ; see CPLR 602[a]; Disa Realty, Inc. v Rao , 198 AD3d 869 , 871). 2025"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" ( Longo v Fogg , 150 AD3d 724, 725 ; see Brown v Cope Bestway Express, Inc. , 99 AD3d 746, 748 ). | 4 | 2018–2025 |
Nova Casualty Co. v. Rpe, LLC
green
2 sentences2020Co. v RPE, LLC , 115 AD3d 717 , 718; see Castro v Durban , 129 AD3d 652, 653 ; Brown v Cope Bestway Express, Inc. , 99 AD3d 746, 748 ). 2016Co. v RPE, LLC, 115 AD3d 717 , 718 [2014]; see Castro v Durban, 129 AD3d 652, 653 [2015]; Brown v Cope Bestway Express, Inc., 99 AD3d 746, 748 [2012]). | 3 | 2015–2020 |
Mattia v. Food Emporium, Inc.
green
2 sentences2002Absent a showing of prejudice, a motion to consolidate actions or for a joint trial pursuant to CPLR 602 (a) should be granted where there are common questions of law or fact (see, Spector v Zuckermann, 287 AD2d 704 ; Mattia v Food Emporium, 259 AD2d 527 ). 2001Absent a showing of prejudice, a motion to consolidate actions or for a joint trial pursuant to CPLR 602 (a) should be granted where common questions of law or fact exist (see, Mattia v Food Emporium, 259 AD2d 527 ). | 3 | 2000–2002 |
Melendez v. Leasing
neutral
2 sentences2025Here, in view of the allegations in Gutama's bills of particulars and medical evidence indicating that he sustained overlapping injuries in the two accidents ( see Melendez v Presto Leasing , 161 AD2d 501 ; Megyesi v Automotive Rentals , 115 AD2d 596, 597 ; cf. Orman v Zhi Yun Won , 230 AD3d 1156 , 1157-1158), in the interest of justice and judicial economy, and to avoid inconsistent verdicts, the two actions should be tried jointly ( see Frank v Y. 1998At issue on appeal is the propriety of Supreme Court’s order denying plaintiffs’ motion for a joint trial pursuant to CPLR 602 (a). * The injuries claimed to have been sustained in each accident are essentially the same (see, e.g., Richardson v Uess Leasing Corp., 191 AD2d 394, 395-396 ; Melendez v Presto Leasing, 161 AD2d 501 ). | 2 | 1998–2025 |
Megyesi v. Automotive Rentals, Inc.
green
2 sentences2025Here, in view of the allegations in Gutama's bills of particulars and medical evidence indicating that he sustained overlapping injuries in the two accidents ( see Melendez v Presto Leasing , 161 AD2d 501 ; Megyesi v Automotive Rentals , 115 AD2d 596, 597 ; cf. Orman v Zhi Yun Won , 230 AD3d 1156 , 1157-1158), in the interest of justice and judicial economy, and to avoid inconsistent verdicts, the two actions should be tried jointly ( see Frank v Y. 1987Although the discretion of the trial court is undeniably wide in assessing the propriety of a motion for a joint trial pursuant to CPLR 602 (a), "the interests of justice and judicial economy are better served by joint trials wherever possible” (Megyesi v Automotive Rentals, 115 AD2d 596 ; see also, Mideal Homes Corp. v L & C Concrete Work, 90 AD2d 789 ). | 2 | 1987–2025 |
Sun v. City of N.Y.
neutral
2 sentences2014“When there are common questions of law or fact, a joint trial is warranted unless the opposing party demonstrates prejudice to a substantial right” (Pierre-Louis v DeLonghi Am., Inc., 66 AD3d 855, 856 [2009]). “ ‘The mere desire to have one’s dispute heard separately does not, by itself, constitute a “substantial right” ’ ” (Lingfei Sun v City of New York, 99 AD3d 673 , 675 [2012], cert denied 571 US —, 134 S Ct 92 [2013], quoting Matter of Vigo S. S. Corp. [Marship Corp. of Monrovia], 26 NY2d 157, 162 [1970], cert denied sub nom. 2014“When there are common questions of law or fact, a joint trial is warranted unless the opposing party demonstrates prejudice to a substantial right” (Pierre-Louis v DeLonghi Am., Inc., 66 AD3d 855, 856 [2009]). “ ‘The mere desire to have one’s dispute heard separately does not, by itself, constitute a “substantial right” ’ ” (Lingfei Sun v City of New York, 99 AD3d 673 , 675 [2012], cert denied 571 US —, 134 S Ct 92 [2013], quoting Matter of Vigo S. S. Corp. [Marship Corp. of Monrovia], 26 NY2d 157, 162 [1970], cert denied sub nom. | 2 | 2014–2014 |
Lingfei Sun v. City of New York
green
2 sentences2014“When there are common questions of law or fact, a joint trial is warranted unless the opposing party demonstrates prejudice to a substantial right” (Pierre-Louis v DeLonghi Am., Inc., 66 AD3d 855, 856 [2009]). “ ‘The mere desire to have one’s dispute heard separately does not, by itself, constitute a “substantial right” ’ ” (Lingfei Sun v City of New York, 99 AD3d 673 , 675 [2012], cert denied 571 US —, 134 S Ct 92 [2013], quoting Matter of Vigo S. S. Corp. [Marship Corp. of Monrovia], 26 NY2d 157, 162 [1970], cert denied sub nom. 2014“When there are common questions of law or fact, a joint trial is warranted unless the opposing party demonstrates prejudice to a substantial right” (Pierre-Louis v DeLonghi Am., Inc., 66 AD3d 855, 856 [2009]). “ ‘The mere desire to have one’s dispute heard separately does not, by itself, constitute a “substantial right” ’ ” (Lingfei Sun v City of New York, 99 AD3d 673 , 675 [2012], cert denied 571 US —, 134 S Ct 92 [2013], quoting Matter of Vigo S. S. Corp. [Marship Corp. of Monrovia], 26 NY2d 157, 162 [1970], cert denied sub nom. | 2 | 2014–2014 |
Orman v. Zhi Yun Won
neutral
1 sentence2025Here, in view of the allegations in Gutama's bills of particulars and medical evidence indicating that he sustained overlapping injuries in the two accidents ( see Melendez v Presto Leasing , 161 AD2d 501 ; Megyesi v Automotive Rentals , 115 AD2d 596, 597 ; cf. Orman v Zhi Yun Won , 230 AD3d 1156 , 1157-1158), in the interest of justice and judicial economy, and to avoid inconsistent verdicts, the two actions should be tried jointly ( see Frank v Y. | 1 | 2025–2025 |
Viafax Corp. v. Citicorp Leasing, Inc.
green
1 sentence2025"Consolidation is appropriate where it will avoid unnecessary duplication of trials, save unnecessary costs and expense, and prevent an injustice which would result from divergent decisions based on the same facts" ( Viafax Corp. v Citicorp Leasing, Inc., 54 AD3d 846, 850 ). | 1 | 2025–2025 |
Sherpa v. Ford Motor Co.
green
1 sentence2025Here, Action No. 1 and Action No. 2 both [*2]arise from the project, concern the same parties, and involve common questions of law and fact ( see Disa Realty, Inc. v Rao , 198 AD3d at 871; Rhoe v Reid , 166 AD3d 919 , 921), and a failure to try the two actions jointly would result in a "duplication of trials, unnecessary costs and expense, and a danger of an injustice resulting from divergent decisions" ( Sherpa v Ford Motor Co. , 216 AD3d 834 , 836). | 1 | 2025–2025 |
In re the Probate of the Will of Smith
neutral
1 sentence2012Regardless of whether a specific request is made to the court to change venue, the court may change venue to the appropriate forum in connection with a motion to consolidate or for a joint trial pursuant to CPLR 602 (a) (see Smith v Witteman Co., 10 AD2d 793 [I960]; Siegel, NY Prac § 116, at 218 [5th ed]). | 1 | 2012–2012 |
Ryckman v. Schlessinger-Levi-Polatsch-Tydings
green
1 sentence2010When 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]). | 1 | 2010–2010 |
| Fox v. Frometa neutral | 1 | 2009–2009 |
| Niles v. Long Island Rail Road neutral | 1 | 2002–2002 |
| Gadelov v. Shore green | 1 | 2001–2001 |
| Fransen v. Maniscalco green | 1 | 2000–2000 |
| Rahman v. Miller green | 1 | 2000–2000 |
| Gage v. Travel Time & Tide, Inc. green | 1 | 1998–1998 |
| Richardson v. Uess Leasing Corp. green | 1 | 1998–1998 |
| McIver v. Canning green | 1 | 1998–1998 |
| Chiacchia v. National Westminster Bank USA green | 1 | 1987–1987 |
| Lavisch v. Schwartz neutral | 1 | 1968–1968 |
Counted by distinct opinions that both name this issue and are annotated to the section; sections every opinion cites regardless of issue are not filtered here, so read the counts against the total above.