Summary
In Doll, the Appellate Division determined that two cases should not be joined for trial where they involved "separate unrelated accidents occurring at different locations and times with each [accident] presenting unique factual issues for resolution" (Doll, 86 A.D.2d at 711).
Summary of this case from Grzesik v. SanchezOpinion
January 14, 1982
Appeal from an order of the Supreme Court at Special Term (Lee, Jr., J.), entered May 5, 1981 in Broome County, which denied a motion by defendants in Action No. 1 and Action No. 2 for a joint trial of the two actions. Plaintiff Nancy R. Doll allegedly sustained injuries as a consequence of two separate automobile accidents which occurred on May 9, 1978 in the City of Binghamton and October 10, 1978 in the Town of Union. Subsequently, she commenced negligence actions against defendants Jeannette and Paul Castiglione in Action No. 1 and defendant Jose L. Valencia, Jr., in Action No. 2. Thereafter, the defendants in both actions moved for an order directing a joint trial thereof. At Special Term, their motion was denied and defendants in Action No. 1 now appeal. We hold that the challenged order should be affirmed. The possibility of confusion for the jury and prejudice to plaintiff resulting from a joint trial of these actions is obvious. In this instance we have separate unrelated accidents occurring at different locations and times with each mishap presenting unique factual issues for resolution. In our judgment, under the circumstances presented, Special Term did not abuse its discretion in granting plaintiff a separate trial for each accident so that the jury involved in each case can clearly focus upon the questions presented as to one accident and reach an appropriate verdict (cf. Hill v. Smalls, 49 A.D.2d 724, app dsmd 38 N.Y.2d 893; Pride v. Perras, 6 A.D.2d 842). In so ruling, we would lastly note that the cases of Thayer v. Collett ( 41 A.D.2d 581) and Wyant v. Jensen ( 25 A.D.2d 388) are not only factually distinguishable from the present case, but also, in each of those earlier instances, as we do here, this court affirmed discretionary orders of Special Term relative to applications for a joint trial. Order affirmed, with costs. Mahoney, P.J., Main, Mikoll, Yesawich, Jr., and Weiss, JJ., concur.