Opinion
May 14, 1998
Appeal from the Supreme Court (Dier, J.).
As a result of alleged injuries sustained in separate rear-end automobile accidents with defendant Jamesine Williams and defendant Soghomon Poladian on August 18, 1993 and May 12, 1995, respectively, plaintiff Fawn W. Millington, and her husband derivatively, commenced these actions. At issue on appeal is the propriety of Supreme Court's order denying plaintiffs' motion for a joint trial pursuant to CPLR 602 (a).
Contrary to Poladian's contention, the court's order denying plaintiffs' motion is appealable as of right ( see, CPLR 5701 [a][2]).
The injuries claimed to have been sustained in each accident are essentially the same ( see, e.g., Richardson v. Uess Leasing Corp., 191 A.D.2d 394, 395-396; Melendez v. Presto Leasing, 161 A.D.2d 501). Moreover, plaintiffs submitted medical evidence in support of the motion that the second accident aggravated the injuries sustained by Millington in the first accident ( see, McIver v. Canning, 204 A.D.2d 698, 699; Gage v. Travel Time Tide, 161 A.D.2d 276; Gomez v. New York City Hous. Auth., 161 A.D.2d 190, 191; cf., Zacharias v. Waldbaum, Inc., 208 A.D.2d 528). In the absence of any demonstration by Poladian, who opposed the motion, that a substantial right would be prejudiced by a joint trial ( see, e.g., McIver v. Canning, supra) and given the possibility of inconsistent verdicts if separate trials ensue ( see, Kupferschmid v. Hennessy, 221 A.D.2d 225, 226-227; Richardson v. Uess Leasing Corp., supra, at 396; Thayer v. Collett, 41 A.D.2d 581), the interest of justice and judicial economy will best be served by a joint trial ( see, Boyman v. Bryant, 133 A.D.2d 802; Holmes v. Mercy Coll., 128 A.D.2d 836).
Cardona, P. J., Mikoll, Crew III and White, JJ., concur.
Ordered that the order is reversed, on the facts, with costs, and motion granted.