Opinion
2013-04-3
COUNTY OF WESTCHESTER, plaintiff, v. WHITE PLAINS AVENUE, LLC, appellant. (Action No. 1). White Plains Avenue, LLC, et al., appellants, v. Rice & Rice, et al., respondents. (Action No. 2).
The Law Office of David S. Klausner PLLC, White Plains, N.Y. (Evelyn Miller of counsel), for appellants. Traub Lieberman Straus & Shrewsberry LLP, Hawthorne, N.Y. (Lisa L. Shrewsberry and Daniel G. Ecker of counsel), for respondents.
The Law Office of David S. Klausner PLLC, White Plains, N.Y. (Evelyn Miller of counsel), for appellants. Traub Lieberman Straus & Shrewsberry LLP, Hawthorne, N.Y. (Lisa L. Shrewsberry and Daniel G. Ecker of counsel), for respondents.
DANIEL D. ANGIOLILLO, J.P., RUTH C. BALKIN, LEONARD B. AUSTIN, and ROBERT J. MILLER, JJ.
In an action to recover damages for breach of contract (Action No. 1), and a related action, inter alia, to recover damages for legal malpractice (Action No. 2), White Plains Avenue, LLC, James H. Bason, Jr., and William Brown, Jr., appeal from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Westchester County (Adler, J.), entered March 6, 2012, as denied their motion pursuant to CPLR 602(a) to consolidate the actions.
ORDERED that the order is affirmed insofar as appealed from, with costs.
“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 A.D.3d 605, 606, 822 N.Y.S.2d 295;see Brown v. Cope Bestway Express, Inc., 99 A.D.3d 746, 747–748, 952 N.Y.S.2d 220;Alizio v. Perpignano, 78 A.D.3d 1087, 1088, 912 N.Y.S.2d 132;Mas–Edwards v. Ultimate Servs., Inc., 45 A.D.3d 540, 845 N.Y.S.2d 414). Here, although the action to recover damages for breach of contract (hereinafter Action No. 1) and the action, inter alia, to recover damages for legal malpractice (hereinafter Action No. 2) involve a common question of fact, Action No. 2 involves numerous additional allegations of professional negligence that are irrelevant to Action No. 1. Furthermore, the issues and applicable legal principles in the respective actions are so dissimilar, and the trial may prove so unwieldy, that consolidation will result in jury confusion and prejudice the respondents' right to a fair trial ( see D'Abreau v. American Bankers Ins. Co. of Fla., 261 A.D.2d 501, 502, 690 N.Y.S.2d 655;197 Merrick Rd. Corp. v. 185 Merrick Rd. Assoc. Corp., 152 A.D.2d 551, 543 N.Y.S.2d 482; Gouldsbury v. Dan's Supreme Supermarket, Inc., 138 A.D.2d 675, 676, 526 N.Y.S.2d 779;Brown v. Brooklyn Union Gas Co., 137 A.D.2d 479, 480, 524 N.Y.S.2d 228). Accordingly, the Supreme Court properly denied the appellants' motion pursuant to CPLR 602(a) to consolidate the actions.