Opinion
February 22, 1996
Appeal from the Supreme Court, New York County (Ira Gammerman, J.).
The severance was a proper exercise of discretion in order to create finality and promote judicial economy. The Liquidator's two claims are distinct, the first for recovery of reinsurance proceeds being based on breach of contract and the second for return of reinsurance premiums on the unenforceability of that contract ( compare, Matter of Klonowski v. Department of Fire, 58 N.Y.2d 398, 402, n 3, with Burke v. Crosson, 85 N.Y.2d 10). Also, by generating a final judgment and thus a jurisdictional basis for review by the Court of Appeals, the severance could moot what is a complex claim for return of the premiums in the event the claim for recovery of the proceeds was reinstated by the Court of Appeals.
Concur — Sullivan, J.P., Ellerin, Nardelli and Williams, JJ.