From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Mulligan v. Farmingdale Un. Free Sch. Dist

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Oct 5, 1987
133 A.D.2d 617 (N.Y. App. Div. 1987)

Opinion

October 5, 1987

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


Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.

The appellant, which declined to commence a third-party action for contribution (see, CPLR 1007), did not move to consolidate the instant action with the plaintiffs' medical malpractice action until this action was scheduled for trial (cf., Steuerman v. Broughton, 123 A.D.2d 681; Inspiration Enters. v. Inland Credit Corp., 54 A.D.2d 839, appeal dismissed 40 N.Y.2d 1014). As a result, inter alia, of necessary proceedings before a medical malpractice panel (see, Judiciary Law § 148-a), trial of the malpractice action cannot take place for some time to come. Under the circumstances, including the prejudicial delay which would be occasioned by consolidation, we cannot say the Supreme Court abused its discretion by denying the motion. Thompson, J.P., Niehoff, Sullivan and Harwood, JJ., concur.


Summaries of

Mulligan v. Farmingdale Un. Free Sch. Dist

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Oct 5, 1987
133 A.D.2d 617 (N.Y. App. Div. 1987)
Case details for

Mulligan v. Farmingdale Un. Free Sch. Dist

Case Details

Full title:ROBBY MULLIGAN et al., Respondents, v. FARMINGDALE UNION FREE SCHOOL…

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

Date published: Oct 5, 1987

Citations

133 A.D.2d 617 (N.Y. App. Div. 1987)

Citing Cases

Smith v. Smith

accident (action No. 2). Supreme Court did not abuse its discretion in denying the motion ( see, Dias v.…

Picozzi v. Powell

Here, the plaintiffs in these two actions are different and thus, the court will consider this motion as one…