The Second Department determined two actions should be consolidated.  Plaintiff was injured in an auto accident and alleged that those injuries were exacerbated by a work-related accident:

Where common questions of law or fact exist, a motion to consolidate or for a joint trial pursuant to CPLR 602(a) should be granted absent a showing of prejudice to a substantial right by the party opposing the … . In view of [plaintiff’s] allegations that certain injuries that he sustained in the automobile accident were exacerbated by the work-related accident, in the interest of justice and judicial economy, and to avoid inconsistent verdicts, the two actions should be tried jointly… . Cieza v 20th Ave Realty Inc, 2013 NY Slip Op 05610, 2nd Dept 8-14-13

In a property-line dispute, the Second Department reversed Supreme Court ruling that the location of the fence on plaintiff’s property was the “law of the case.”  The “law of the case” doctrine was imposed by Supreme Court based on the dismissal of the title insurance company’s affirmative defense which claimed the fence was on defendant’s land.  The Second Department wrote:

“The doctrine of the law of the case’ is a rule of practice, an articulation of sound policy that, when an issue is once judicially determined, that should be the end of the matter as far as Judges and courts of co-ordinate jurisdiction are concerned” …  The doctrine “applies only to legal determinations that were necessarily resolved on the merits in [a] prior decision” …, “and to the same questions presented in the same case” … . “Like claim preclusion and issue preclusion, preclusion under the law of the case contemplates that the parties had a full and fair’ opportunity to litigate the initial determination” … .  Contrary to the determination of the Supreme Court, the prior order …which granted [the] motion pursuant to CPLR 3211 to dismiss …, did not necessarily resolve the issue of whether the fence was located on the plaintiffs’ property or the defendants’ property, as the parties did not have an opportunity to fully litigate that issue… . Ramanathan v Aharon, 2013 NY Slip Op 05621, 2nd Dept 8-14-13

The Second Department explained the criteria for disclosure from a nonparty witness:

A party seeking disclosure from a nonparty witness must demonstrate that the disclosure sought is material and necessary, and must set forth the “circumstances or reasons” why disclosure is “sought or required” from such nonparty witness (CPLR 3101[a][4]…). Here, the plaintiff failed to demonstrate that additional testimony from the nonparty witnesses or the information sought would be material and necessary to the prosecution of this case (see CPLR 3101[a]…).  Dicenso v Wallin, 2013 NY Slip Op 05612, 2nd Dept 8-14-13

The Second Department noted that a court does not have the power to dismiss a complaint based on the doctrine of laches, or failure to prosecute, where plaintiff has not been served with a 90-day demand to serve and file a note of issue (CPLR 3216).  Baxter v Javier, 2013 NY slip Op 05605, 2nd Dept 8-14-13

In a full-fledged opinion by Justice Balkin, the Second Department determined trial courts have the discretion to determine applications made in the absence of the formal requirements of a cross-motion.  In this case the defendant answered a motion for a default judgment demonstrating a reasonable excuse and a meritorious defense. Included in the answering papers was an application for leave to serve a late answer to compel plaintiff to accept the answer.  Supreme Court granted all the requested relief.  The plaintiff appealed on the ground that the affirmative relief should have been requested through a formal cross-motion.  The Second Department wrote:

Given the language of CPLR 2215, and the contexts in which it is applicable, the most reasonable interpretation of the statute is that a party seeking relief in connection with another party’s motion is, as a general rule, required to do so by way of a cross motion, at least to have a right that the request be determined on the merits. Otherwise, a party who seeks relief by way of a notice of cross motion would be in a position less favorable than that of a party who merely makes the request without a notice of cross motion: the party who makes a formal cross motion would be required to comply with the notice and service requirements and deadlines imposed by the statute, but a party seeking relief merely by requesting it would enjoy greater flexibility.

Nonetheless, courts retain discretion to entertain requests for affirmative relief that do not meet the requirements of CPLR 2215. Litigants, however, must be cognizant of an important distinction between the two situations: a party in compliance with CPLR 2215 is entitled to have its cross motion considered; a party not in compliance with the statute must hope that the court opts, in the exercise of its discretion, to entertain the request. Thus, we are in agreement with our colleagues in the Appellate Division, 3rd Department, who, in Fox Wander W. Neighborhood Assn. v Luther Forest Community Assn. (178 AD2d at 872), held that, even in the absence of an explicit notice of cross motion, the Supreme Court is not “prohibited” from entertaining the nonmoving party’s request for relief.  Fried v Jacob Holding Inc, 2013 NY Slip Op 05555, 2nd Dept 8-7-13