Summary
affirming denial of severance where unified trial would not result in "prejudice to a substantial right" of the defendants
Summary of this case from Ambac Assurance Corp. v. Countrywide Home Loans, Inc.Opinion
2013-05-16
Beverly CASON, et al., Plaintiffs–Respondents, v. DEUTSCHE BANK GROUP, et al., Defendants–Appellants.
Morgan, Lewis & Bockius LLP, New York (Kenneth J. Turnbull of counsel), for appellants. Norman A. Olch, New York, for respondents.
Morgan, Lewis & Bockius LLP, New York (Kenneth J. Turnbull of counsel), for appellants. Norman A. Olch, New York, for respondents.
MAZZARELLI, J.P., SAXE, MOSKOWITZ, MANZANET–DANIELS, JJ.
Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Joan M. Kenney, J.), entered October 4, 2012, which, in this employment discrimination action, denied defendants' motion, pursuant to CPLR 603 and 1003, to sever plaintiffs' claims into separate trial units, unanimously affirmed, without costs.
Plaintiffs assert claims under State and City Human Rights Laws, alleging defendants' discrimination based on race and national origin. Plaintiffs cite defendants' ethnically disparaging remarks and preferential treatment of plaintiffs' white counterparts in terms of compensation and promotion. Two plaintiffs allege retaliatory termination based on their complaints of racial discrimination, while the third alleges that the conditions resulting from the discriminatory acts became so difficult that he was forced to resign. Plaintiffs' supervisor testified as to her long familiarity with defendants' alleged acts of racial discrimination and her caution with discussing the subject because she had seen the negative impact on careers of those who complained.
The motion court providently exercised its discretion in denying defendants' application for severance ( see Geneva Temps, Inc. v. New World Communities, Inc., 24 A.D.3d 332, 334, 806 N.Y.S.2d 519 [1st Dept. 2005] ). Plaintiffs' claims share a “ ‘common nucleus of facts' ” sufficient to warrant a joint trial ( Vecciarelli v. King Pharms., Inc., 71 A.D.3d 595, 596, 899 N.Y.S.2d 14 [1st Dept. 2010], quoting Sichel v. Community Synagogue, 256 A.D.2d 276, 276, 682 N.Y.S.2d 382 [1st Dept. 1998] ).
Defendants have not shown that a joint trial will result in prejudice to a substantial right ( see Vecciarelli, 71 A.D.3d at 596, 899 N.Y.S.2d 14). Indeed, the trial court will have discretion to address any potential danger of “guilt by association” by appropriate curative instructions ( see Pierre–Louis v. DeLonghi Am., Inc., 66 A.D.3d 855, 856, 887 N.Y.S.2d 632 [2d Dept. 2009] ).