You are here: / / Consolidation and Joint Trial Explained​

Consolidation and Joint Trial Explained​

The Second Department explained the criteria for a motion to consolidate and explained when consolidation, as opposed to joining two actions for trial, is not appropriate:

“A motion to consolidate two or more actions rests within the sound discretion of the trial court” (… see CPLR 602). “Where common questions of law or fact exist, consolidation is warranted unless the opposing party demonstrates prejudice to a substantial right” … . * * *

…[A]ctions should be joined for trial, rather than consolidated, [when] certain parties would appear as both the plaintiff and the defendant if the actions were consolidated, and the actions involve certain different defendants … .  Matter of Joseph J, 2013 NY Slip Pp. 03676, 2nd Dept, 5-22-13

 

You might also like
THE REAR-END CHAIN-REACTION ACCIDENT OCCURRED IN PENNSYLVANIA BUT ALL PARTIES RESIDED IN NEW YORK, SUPREME COURT SHOULD NOT HAVE, SUA SPONTE, DETERMINED THAT PENNSYLVANIA LAW APPLIED, BECAUSE THE PARTIES DID NOT RAISE THE CHOICE OF LAW ISSUE THEY ARE DEEMED TO HAVE CONSENTED TO THE APPLICABILITY OF NEW YORK LAW (SECOND DEPT).
DEFENDANT DID NOT DEMONSTRATE IT WAS THE ALTER EGO OF PLAINTIFF’S EMPLOYER, DEFENDANT’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT DISMISSING THE NEGLIGENCE COMPLAINT SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED.
BANK’S EVIDENCE OF STANDING DID NOT MEET THE CRITERIA OF THE BUSINESS RECORDS EXCEPTION TO THE HEARSAY RULE (SECOND DEPT).
In Personal Injury Case, Court Should Not Have Granted Mistrial When Objection Sustained, Lawyer Admonished and Curative Instruction Given
COUNTY COURT DECIDED TO ANONYMIZE POTENTIAL AND EMPANELED JURORS IN THIS MURDER TRIAL; THE MAJORITY CONCLUDED THE ANONYMIZED JURY DID NOT CONSTITUTE A MODE OF PROCEEDINGS ERROR AND DID NOT WARRANT INTERVENTION IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE; THE TWO-JUSTICE DISSENT ARGUED THE EFFECT OF THE ANONYMIZED JURY ON THE PRESUMPTION OF INNOCENCE WARRANTED REVERSAL IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE (THIRD DEPT).
CITY DID NOT DEMONSTRATE IT DID NOT CREATE THE ROADWAY DEPRESSION WHICH CAUSED PLAINTIFF’S BICYCLE ACCIDENT, SUMMARY JUDGMENT PROPERLY DENIED.
MEDICAL MALPRACTICE ACTION SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN DISMISSED BASED ON A FINDING THE MOTION TO SUBSTITUTE THE REPRESENTATIVE OF THE ESTATE OF THE PLAINTIFF WAS UNTIMELY (SECOND DEPT).
PLAINTIFF ALLEGED DEFENDANT NEGLIGENTLY PERFORMED A ROBOTIC ASSISTED LAPAROSCOPIC ADRENALECTOMY; PLAINTIFF’S EXPERT, A GENERAL SURGEON WHO WAS EXPERIENCED IN LAPAROSCOPIC SURGERY, BUT NOT ROBOTIC SURGERY, SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN PRECLUDED FROM TESTIFYING; THE LACK OF EXPERIENCE WITH ROBOTIC SURGERY WENT TO THE WEIGHT OF THE TESTIMONY, NOT ITS ADMISSIBILITY (SECOND DEPT).

Categories

Sign Up for the Mailing List to Be Notified When the Site Is Updated.

  • This field is for validation purposes and should be left unchanged.

Copyright © 2026 New York Appellate Digest, Inc.
Site by CurlyHost | Privacy Policy

Unsigned Depositions Deemed Admissible Expert’s Affidavit Should Have Been Considered in Summary Judgment Motion...