From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Gouldsbury v. Dan's Supreme Supermarket, Inc.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Mar 28, 1988
138 A.D.2d 675 (N.Y. App. Div. 1988)

Opinion

March 28, 1988

Appeal from the Supreme Court, Nassau County (Becker, J.).


Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.

While there are some common issues of law and fact shared by these two actions, under all of the circumstances, including the disparity between the stages of litigation to which each case has progressed and the fact that principal claims in the two actions are based upon widely disparate legal theories, we conclude that it was not an abuse of discretion to deny the motion to consolidate (CPLR 602; see, Brown v. Brooklyn Union Gas Co., 137 A.D.2d 479; Aluminum Mill Supply Corp. v. Sky-view Metals, 117 A.D.2d 765, 767). We recommend that for reasons of judicial economy the trial of the fraud action precede the trial of the legal malpractice action (see, Brown v. Brooklyn Union Gas Co., supra). Thompson, J.P., Bracken, Brown and Weinstein, JJ., concur.


Summaries of

Gouldsbury v. Dan's Supreme Supermarket, Inc.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Mar 28, 1988
138 A.D.2d 675 (N.Y. App. Div. 1988)
Case details for

Gouldsbury v. Dan's Supreme Supermarket, Inc.

Case Details

Full title:JOHN GOULDSBURY et al., Plaintiffs, v. DAN'S SUPREME SUPERMARKET, INC.…

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

Date published: Mar 28, 1988

Citations

138 A.D.2d 675 (N.Y. App. Div. 1988)

Citing Cases

E. 115th St. Rlty. v. Focus Str. Bl. Devs.

when: (1) a party is identified as both a plaintiff and a defendant ( Geneva Temps, Inc. v New York…

Wells Fargo Bank v. Sandoval

However, where the opposing party has shown that consolidating or joining the actions for trial will…