Summary
affirming denial of motion to sever into two separate actions because "[i]t is preferable to try related actions together, in order to avoid a waste of judicial resources"
Summary of this case from Ambac Assurance Corp. v. Countrywide Home Loans, Inc.Opinion
3420.
Decided April 20, 2004.
Order, Supreme Court, Bronx County (Barry Salman, J.), entered May 27, 2003, which, to the extent appealed from, denied defendants' motion to sever the matter into two separate actions, unanimously affirmed, without costs.
Morris, Duffy, Alonso Faley, LLP, New York (Pauline E. Glaser of counsel), for appellants.
Linda G. Roth, New York, for respondents.
Before: Buckley, P.J., Nardelli, Andrias, Sullivan, Gonzalez, JJ.
It is preferable to try related actions together, in order to avoid a waste of judicial resources and the risk of inconsistent verdicts ( Rothstein v. Milleridge Inn, 251 A.D.2d 154). These incidents arose from a common nucleus of facts ( Sichel v. Community Synagogue, 256 A.D.2d 276), and will require almost the same list of witnesses ( Andresakis v. Lynn, 236 A.D.2d 252). Defendants have failed to demonstrate prejudice to a substantial right in the absence of severance of these claims ( id.; CPLR 603). This was a proper exercise of the trial court's discretion.
THIS CONSTITUTES THE DECISION AND ORDER OF THE SUPREME COURT, APPELLATE DIVISION, FIRST DEPARTMENT.