Opinion
January 31, 1991
Appeal from the Supreme Court, New York County (Karla Moskowitz, J.).
The IAS court did not abuse its discretion in directing a joint trial of these two actions. The first action was commenced by an accounting firm to recover a fee; counterclaims alleging accounting malpractice for failing to uncover a massive embezzlement scheme were interposed. The second action, brought by one of the defendants in the first action, also arises out of the accounting firm's role in the same embezzlement scheme. There are clearly substantial issues of law and fact that are common to both actions (Bradford v Coleman Catholic High School, 110 A.D.2d 965).
Concur — Milonas, J.P., Wallach, Asch, Kassal and Smith, JJ.