You are here: / / Party Who Was Both a Plaintiff and a Defendant in a Joint Trial of Two...
, ,

Party Who Was Both a Plaintiff and a Defendant in a Joint Trial of Two Actions Was Properly Allowed to Have Two Attorneys

The First Department determined a party who was a plaintiff in one case and a defendant in another was properly allowed to have two attorneys in the joint trial.  Pimentel was involved in an automobile accident with Wong.  Wong’s car jumped the curb and crashed into a store, injuring plaintiff Newark. Newark sued Wong and Pimentel and Pimentel sued Wong.  Pimentel was represented in each action by separate attorneys:

The trial court did not abuse its discretion in allowing Pimentel’s interests as a plaintiff in his own action and as a defendant in this action to be represented by separate attorneys (see CPLR 4011…). The court promised to and did exert control over the nature of the dual representation, as necessary, and Pimentel’s defense counsel, whose opening statement, summation, and questioning of witnesses were brief, played a limited role. In any event, in the absence of any evidence of an unfair advantage or prejudice, any error would be harmless. Newark v Hector R. Pimentel, 2014 NY Slip Op 03636, 1st Dept 5-20-14

 

You might also like
SANCTIONS IMPOSED FOR A DELAYED RESPONSE TO DISCOVERY DEMANDS WERE TOO SEVERE, EFFECTIVELY PRECLUDING PROOF OF COUNTERCLAIMS CENTRAL TO THE DEFENSE; NEW TRIAL ORDERED (FIRST DEPT).
ARCHDIOCESE NOT LIABLE FOR ACTIONS OF NURSING HOME FOR WHICH PLAINTIFF WORKED UNDER THE SINGLE-EMPLOYER DOCTRINE, SUMMARY JUDGMENT SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED.
CITY WAS IMMUNE FROM SUIT BASED UPON THE HANDLING OF A DECEASED PERSON DURING HURRICANE SANDY AND NO SPECIAL RELATIONSHIP WAS DEMONSTRATED WITH THE CITY (FIRST DEPT).
LIMITED LIABILITY PROVISION PRECLUDED RECOVERY FOR BREACH OF CONTRACT FOR ANY AMOUNT OVER THE LIMITATION, ALTHOUGH THE LIMITATION OF LIABILITY WAS AN AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE, IT WAS PROPERLY CONSIDERED ON A MOTION TO DISMISS (FIRST DEPT).
WHETHER THE JUDGMENT DEBTOR IS ENTITLED TO RESTITUTION AFTER REVERSAL OF A RESTRAINING NOTICE AND WHETHER PLAINTIFF IS ENTITLED TO AN INSTALLMENT PAYMENT ORDER ARE DISCRETIONARY ISSUES TO BE DECIDED UPON REMAND; CRITERIA EXPLAINED (FIRST DEPT).
LABOR LAW 200 AND NEGLIGENCE CAUSES OF ACTION SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN DISMISSED; THE ACCIDENT WAS RELATED TO MATERIAL ON THE FLOOR WHICH CAUSED THE WHEELS OF A CART PLAINTIFF WAS PUSHING TO GET STUCK; DEFENDANT DID NOT DEMONSTRATE WHEN THE FLOOR WAS LAST INSPECTED OR CLEANED (FIRST DEPT).
A STACK OF SHEETROCK BOARDS WHICH WERE LEANING AGAINST A WALL FELL ON PLAINTIFF; THERE WERE QUESTIONS OF FACT ABOUT WHETHER IT WAS A GRAVITY-RELATED EVENT AND WHETHER THE ELEVATION DIFFERENTIAL WAS DE MINIMUS (FIRST DEPT).
Leaky Condominium Roof Supported Negligence and Nuisance

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

Broker’s Complaint Stated Causes of Action for Breach of Implied Contract... EPTL 2-1.13, Which Required that Certain Formula Clauses in Trusts and Wills...