Fay v. Wang

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Fay v. Wang

134 A.D.2d 563, 522 N.Y.S.2d 452, 1987 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 50769

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York·Decided November 30, 1987·Published·Cited by 2 cases

Opinion

In an action, inter alia, to recover damages for negligence and medical malpractice, etc., the plaintiffs appeal, as limited by their brief, from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Orange County (Ingrassia, J.), dated April 1, 1987, as granted a motion to sever their action as against the defendant St. Francis Hospital from their action as against the other defendants.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, insofar as appealed from, with costs.

The decision whether to order a severance of claims is one which rests in the sound discretion of the trial court, and it will be upheld on appeal absent a demonstration of abuse of discretion or prejudice to a substantial right (see, County of Chenango Indus. Dev. Agency v Lockwood Greene Engrs., 111 AD2d 508; Morford v Sulka & Co., 79 AD2d 502). There has been no showing of an abuse of discretion or prejudice to a substantial right here. Thompson, J. P., Niehoff, Rubin and Sullivan, JJ., concur.

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

In an action, inter alia, to recover damages for negligence and medical malpractice, etc., the plaintiffs appeal, as limited by their brief, from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Orange County (Ingrassia, J.), dated April 1, 1987, as granted a motion to sever their action as against the defendant St. Francis Hospital from their action as against the other defendants.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, insofar as appealed from, with costs.

The decision whether to order a severance of claims is one which rests in the sound discretion of the trial court, and it will be upheld on appeal absent a demonstration of abuse of discretion or prejudice to a substantial right (see, County of Chenango Indus. Dev. Agency v Lockwood Greene Engrs., 111 AD2d 508; Morford v Sulka & Co., 79 AD2d 502). There has been no showing of an abuse of discretion or prejudice to a substantial right here. Thompson, J. P., Niehoff, Rubin and Sullivan, JJ., concur.

Fay v. Wang, 134 A.D.2d 563, 522 N.Y.S.2d 452, 1987 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 50769 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1987).

Pincite

134 A.D.2d 563 (Fay v. Wang) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related