From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Megyesi v. Automotive Rentals, Inc.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Dec 16, 1985
115 A.D.2d 596 (N.Y. App. Div. 1985)

Opinion

December 16, 1985

Appeal from the Supreme Court, Orange County (Walsh, J.).


Order reversed, with one bill of costs against defendants Automotive Rentals, Inc., Mary Kay Cosmetics, Inc., and Linda Gravitt, and motion granted.

Although the trial court's discretion in determining a motion for a joint trial is wide, the interests of justice and judicial economy are better served by joint trials wherever possible (Mideal Homes Corp. v L C Concrete Work, 90 A.D.2d 789; see also, Import Alley v Mid-Island Shopping Plaza, 103 A.D.2d 797, 798; Mel-Stu Constr. Corp. v Melwood Constr. Corp., 101 A.D.2d 809, 811). Therefore, we substitute our discretion for that of Special Term by granting plaintiff's motion for a joint trial of two personal injury actions arising out of two separate automobile accidents which occurred less than 10 months apart. These actions present a common issue of fact (CPLR 602 [a]), i.e., the extent to which plaintiff's injuries were caused by the negligence of the defendants in each case (see, Thayer v Collett, 41 A.D.2d 581; Wyant v Jensen, 25 A.D.2d 388; Potter v Clark, 19 A.D.2d 585). Lazer, J.P., Bracken, Weinstein and Kunzeman, JJ., concur.


Summaries of

Megyesi v. Automotive Rentals, Inc.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Dec 16, 1985
115 A.D.2d 596 (N.Y. App. Div. 1985)
Case details for

Megyesi v. Automotive Rentals, Inc.

Case Details

Full title:CAMILLE MEGYESI, Appellant, v. AUTOMOTIVE RENTALS, INC., et al.…

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

Date published: Dec 16, 1985

Citations

115 A.D.2d 596 (N.Y. App. Div. 1985)

Citing Cases

Hanover Ins. Grp. v. Mezansky

The trial court has broad discretion in determining whether to order consolidation ( see J & A Vending v.…

Wells Fargo Bank v. Sandoval

When the two actions involve different plaintiffs, a joint trial rather than consolidation is appropriate…