Opinion
CA 02-02808
July 3, 2003.
Appeal from an order of Supreme Court, Onondaga County (Roy, J.), entered October 18, 2002, which, inter alia, granted plaintiff's motion for a trial preference.
SUGARMAN LAW FIRM, LLP, SYRACUSE (SHERRY R. BRUCE OF COUNSEL), FOR DEFENDANT-APPELLANT AND THIRD-PARTY PLAINTIFF-APPELLANT.
ALEXANDER CATALANO, LLC, SYRACUSE (JAMES L. ALEXANDER OF COUNSEL), FOR PLAINTIFF-RESPONDENT.
COSTELLO, COONEY FEARON, PLLC, SYRACUSE (SHELLY DI BENEDETTO OF COUNSEL), FOR THIRD-PARTY DEFENDANT-RESPONDENT.
PRESENT: HURLBUTT, J.P., SCUDDER, KEHOE, BURNS, AND GORSKI, JJ.
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
It is hereby ORDERED that the order so appealed from be and the same hereby is unanimously affirmed with costs.
Memorandum:
Supreme Court did not abuse its discretion in granting plaintiff's motion for a trial preference in this personal injury action on the basis of plaintiff's indigency ( see Hoyt v. Kazel, 265 A.D.2d 527, 527-528) upon its determination that the "interests of justice will be served by an early trial" (CPLR 3403 [a] [3]; see Nold v City of Troy, 94 A.D.2d 930; see also Spratt v. General Elec. Co., 242 A.D.2d 900; Wolf v. Wolf, 232 A.D.2d 330, 331). Nor, under the circumstances of this case, did the court abuse its discretion in granting that part of third-party defendant's cross motion for an order severing the third-party action from the main action for purposes of trial. The main action had been certified as trial-ready, plaintiff had been granted a preference therein, and the third-party action had recently been commenced and essential discovery therein had not yet begun ( see CPLR 603, 1010; Singh v. City of New York, 294 A.D.2d 422, 423; Ambriano v. Bowman, 245 A.D.2d 404, 405; Cusano v. Sankyo Seiki Mfg. Co., 184 A.D.2d 489, 490; Santos v. Sure Iron Works, 166 A.D.2d 571, 573).