From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Gadelov v. Shure

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Jul 3, 2000
274 A.D.2d 375 (N.Y. App. Div. 2000)

Opinion

Submitted June 7, 2000.

July 3, 2000.

In a consolidated action to recover damages for personal injuries and wrongful death, the plaintiffs John Hopper and Daniel L. Briggs appeal from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Knipel, J.), dated December 3, 1999, as granted those branches of the motion of Moshe E. Klein which were to consolidate their actions, originally commenced in Supreme Court, Sullivan County, with an action commenced in Supreme Court, Kings County.

Eisenberg Kirsch, Liberty, N.Y. (Bertram W. Eisenberg of counsel), for appellants.

Mark Schwartz, Brooklyn, N.Y., for plaintiffs-respondents Revital Gadelov, Sigalit Gadelov, Rachel Gadelov, and Aaron Gadelov.

Wolf Fuhrman, New York, N.Y. (Cary M. Greenberg of counsel), for plaintiff-respondent Alik Yusupov.

Koors Jednak, Bronx, N.Y. (Paul W. Koors and Eileen M. Burger of counsel), and Joel R. Appelbaum, Liberty, N.Y., for defendants-respondents Tziporah F. Shure and Moshe Eli Klein (one brief filed).

Herschel Kulefsky, New York, N.Y., for plaintiff-respondent Yitzchok Boxer (no brief filed).

Before: LAWRENCE J. BRACKEN, J.P., DANIEL W. JOY, WILLIAM C. THOMPSON, GLORIA GOLDSTEIN, SANDRA J. FEUERSTEIN, JJ.


DECISION ORDER

ORDERED that the order is affirmed insofar as appealed from, with one bill of costs to the respondents appearing separately and filing separate briefs.

A motion to consolidate pursuant to CPLR 602(a) rests in the sound discretion of the court. Absent a showing of prejudice to a substantial right by a party opposing the motion, consolidation should be granted where common questions of law or fact exist. In addition, where actions commenced in different counties are consolidated pursuant to CPLR 602, the venue should be placed in the county where the first action was commenced, unless special circumstances exist, which in the sound discretion of the court, warrant placement of venue elsewhere (see, Mattia v. Food Emporium, 259 A.D.2d 527; McDutchess Bldrs. v. Dutchess Knolls, 244 A.D.2d 534; Rodgers v. Worrell, 214 A.D.2d 553; Gomez v. Jersey Coast Egg Producers, 186 A.D.2d 629). In this case, we find no basis to disturb the Supreme Court's decision to consolidate the actions in Kings County.


Summaries of

Gadelov v. Shure

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Jul 3, 2000
274 A.D.2d 375 (N.Y. App. Div. 2000)
Case details for

Gadelov v. Shure

Case Details

Full title:REVITAL GADELOV, ETC., ET AL., PLAINTIFF-RESPONDENTS, JOHN HOPPER, ET AL.…

Court:Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department

Date published: Jul 3, 2000

Citations

274 A.D.2d 375 (N.Y. App. Div. 2000)
711 N.Y.S.2d 896

Citing Cases

State of New York v. Winkle

A motion to consolidate actions for joint trial pursuant to CPLR 602(a) rests in the sound discretion of the…

State of New York v. Grecco

g procedural stages where consolidation would result in undue delay and resolution of either action (seeFK…