146 North Salina Street, Inc. v. Unigard Jamestown Mutual Insurance

54 A.D.2d 1129, 388 N.Y.S.2d 805, 1976 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 15116
CourtAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York
DecidedNovember 12, 1976
StatusPublished
Cited by2 cases

This text of 54 A.D.2d 1129 (146 North Salina Street, Inc. v. Unigard Jamestown Mutual Insurance) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
146 North Salina Street, Inc. v. Unigard Jamestown Mutual Insurance, 54 A.D.2d 1129, 388 N.Y.S.2d 805, 1976 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 15116 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1976).

Opinion

Order unanimously affirmed, with costs. Memorandum: The question before us is whether Special Term properly exercised its discretion in directing a joint trial of actions brought by the owner of real property and the principal tenant against several fire insurance companies. CPLR 602 (subd [a]) provides in pertinent part that "[w]hen actions involving a common question of law or [1130]*1130fact are pending before a court, the court, upon motion, may order a joint trial of any or all the matters in issue * * * and may make such other orders concerning proceedings therein as may tend to avoid unnecessary costs or delay”. A court has "wide discretion” to order or deny a joint trial in order to "eliminate multiplicity of actions pending in the same court while protecting substantial rights” (2 Weinstein-Korn-Miller, NY Civ Prac, par 602.01). All of the actions arise out of a single incident and the record discloses that there are common questions of law and fact. The appellants have not met "the burden of establishing” their claim of prejudice (Matter of Virgo S. S. Corp [Marship Corp. of Monrovia], 26 NY2d 157, 161-162). "Upon the total submission of all the issues * * * there will be no problems so 'confusing and burdensome to the trial jury’ as to preclude such procedure” (Moore v Atlas Assur. Co., 29 AD2d 912, 913). Special Term’s exercise of discretion in consolidating in a joint trial all five cases should not be disturbed. (Appeal from order of Onondaga Supreme Court&emdash;joint trial.) Present&emdash;Marsh, P. J., Moule, Mahoney, Goldman and Witmer, JJ.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Related

Williams v. Mascitti
71 A.D.2d 813 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1979)
Del Bello v. Wilmot
59 A.D.2d 1023 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1977)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
54 A.D.2d 1129, 388 N.Y.S.2d 805, 1976 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 15116, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/146-north-salina-street-inc-v-unigard-jamestown-mutual-insurance-nyappdiv-1976.