DeSilva v. Plot Realty, LLC

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

DeSilva v. Plot Realty, LLC

85 A.D.3d 422, 924 N.Y.S.2d 86

CourtAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York

DecidedJune 2, 2011

StatusPublished

Cited by3 cases

This text of 85 A.D.3d 422 (DeSilva v. Plot Realty, LLC) 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

DeSilva v. Plot Realty, LLC, 85 A.D.3d 422, 924 N.Y.S.2d 86 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2011).

Pincite

Opinion

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Milton A. Tingling, J.), entered January 18, 2010, which, insofar as appealed from, denied the cross motion of DeSilva and Deseo Appliances (collectively DeSilva) to disqualify Plot Realty, LLC’s counsel, unanimously affirmed, without costs. Order, same court and Justice, entered February 4, 2010, which, sua sponte, amended the January 18, 2010 order to the extent of granting Plot Realty’s motion to consolidate two actions pending in Supreme Court and another in Civil Court, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

The cross motion was properly denied since DeSilva failed to [423]*423establish that Plot Realty’s attorney, who was also its controlling member and was effectively representing himself, was a necessary witness (see S & S Hotel Ventures Ltd. Partnership v 777 S. H. Corp., 69 NY2d 437, 446 [1987]; Nimkoff v Nimkoff, 18 AD3d 344, 346 [2005]).

Consolidation of the actions was appropriate since the matters have common questions of law and fact, and DeSilva failed to carry his burden of showing prejudice to a substantial right (see Geneva Temps, Inc. v New World Communities, Inc., 24 AD3d 332, 334 [2005]); DeSilva’s claims of possible jury confusion and poisoning of any jury that would hear the nuisance and slander of title actions together are unpersuasive. Contrary to DeSilva’s argument, the amended consolidation order did not contravene this Court’s affirmance of a different Justice’s order consolidating the actions for the limited purposes of discovery (45 AD3d 312 [2007]), inasmuch as this Court’s prior order was intended as a temporary case management ruling. Nor did the amended order violate the rule against sua sponte consolidation because the initial order had been the result of a motion and only its reconsideration was sua sponte (see CPLR 602; compare AIU Ins. Co. v ELRAC, Inc., 269 AD2d 412 [2000]). Concur— Andrias, J.P., Sweeny, Moskowitz, Renwick and Richter, JJ.

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

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Milton A. Tingling, J.), entered January 18, 2010, which, insofar as appealed from, denied the cross motion of DeSilva and Deseo Appliances (collectively DeSilva) to disqualify Plot Realty, LLC’s counsel, unanimously affirmed, without costs. Order, same court and Justice, entered February 4, 2010, which, sua sponte, amended the January 18, 2010 order to the extent of granting Plot Realty’s motion to consolidate two actions pending in Supreme Court and another in Civil Court, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

The cross motion was properly denied since DeSilva failed to [423]*423establish that Plot Realty’s attorney, who was also its controlling member and was effectively representing himself, was a necessary witness (see S & S Hotel Ventures Ltd. Partnership v 777 S. H. Corp., 69 NY2d 437, 446 [1987]; Nimkoff v Nimkoff, 18 AD3d 344, 346 [2005]).

Consolidation of the actions was appropriate since the matters have common questions of law and fact, and DeSilva failed to carry his burden of showing prejudice to a substantial right (see Geneva Temps, Inc. v New World Communities, Inc., 24 AD3d 332, 334 [2005]); DeSilva’s claims of possible jury confusion and poisoning of any jury that would hear the nuisance and slander of title actions together are unpersuasive. Contrary to DeSilva’s argument, the amended consolidation order did not contravene this Court’s affirmance of a different Justice’s order consolidating the actions for the limited purposes of discovery (45 AD3d 312 [2007]), inasmuch as this Court’s prior order was intended as a temporary case management ruling. Nor did the amended order violate the rule against sua sponte consolidation because the initial order had been the result of a motion and only its reconsideration was sua sponte (see CPLR 602; compare AIU Ins. Co. v ELRAC, Inc., 269 AD2d 412 [2000]). Concur— Andrias, J.P., Sweeny, Moskowitz, Renwick and Richter, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

85 A.D.3d 422, 924 N.Y.S.2d 86, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/desilva-v-plot-realty-llc-nyappdiv-2011.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack