From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Paolo v. Eilat

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Jan 26, 1976
51 A.D.2d 585 (N.Y. App. Div. 1976)

Opinion

January 26, 1976


In two negligence actions to recover damages for personal injuries, etc., Gerald Friedman, a defendant in each action, appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Suffolk County, dated June 2, 1975, which denied his motion to consolidate the action pending in Kings County with the action pending in Suffolk County. Order reversed, in the exercise of discretion in the interest of justice, without costs, and motion granted. Under the circumstances, wherein these actions arise out of the same automobile accident, it was an improvident exercise of discretion to deny consolidation (see Edwards v Lewin, 284 App. Div. 28; Liotta v Pollack, 21 A.D.2d 934). Our reversal is without prejudice to a motion by the plaintiffs in Action No. 2 to change venue to Nassau County, where the accident occurred, or to any other county, pursuant to CPLR 510 (subd 3), upon a showing that the convenience of material witnesses will be promoted by the change (cf. Krieger v Concord Hotel, 29 A.D.2d 875). Gulotta, P.J., Latham, Margett, Damiani and Christ, JJ., concur.


Summaries of

Paolo v. Eilat

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Jan 26, 1976
51 A.D.2d 585 (N.Y. App. Div. 1976)
Case details for

Paolo v. Eilat

Case Details

Full title:GLADYS PAOLO, Plaintiff, v. SERENA EILAT, Defendant, and GERALD FRIEDMAN…

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

Date published: Jan 26, 1976

Citations

51 A.D.2d 585 (N.Y. App. Div. 1976)

Citing Cases

Daibes v. Cheng

Both reason and controlling law dictate this inescapable conclusion. See, Padula v City of New York, 52 AD3d…

Daibes v. Cheng

Both reason and controlling law dictate this inescapable conclusion. See, Padula v. City of New York, 52…