Golfo v. Loevner

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Golfo v. Loevner

7 A.D.3d 568, 777 N.Y.S.2d 159

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

DecidedMay 10, 2004

StatusPublished

Cited by3 cases

This text of 7 A.D.3d 568 (Golfo v. Loevner) 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

Golfo v. Loevner, 7 A.D.3d 568, 777 N.Y.S.2d 159 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2004).

Pincite

Opinion

In an action to recover damages for personal injuries (Action No. 1), and an action to recover damages for negligence and breach of contract (Action No. 2), Whitman Group, Ltd., the defendant in Action No. 2, appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Suffolk County (Cohalan, J.), dated May 28, 2003, which granted the motion of the plaintiff in Action No. 1 for a joint trial of Action Nos. 1 and 2.

Ordered that the order is reversed, on the law, with costs, and the motion is denied.

The Supreme Court erred in granting the motion of the plaintiff in Action No. 1 for a joint trial of Action No. 1, an action to recover damages for personal injuries sustained on a boat, and Action No. 2, an action to recover damages for the negligent failure to provide adequate liability and casualty insurance coverage for the boat and for breach of contract, since the two actions do not involve common questions of law or fact (see CPLR 602 [a]; Johnson v Berger, 171 AD2d 728 [1991]; Dreizen v Morris I. Stoler, Inc., 98 AD2d 759 [1983]). Moreover, a joint trial of these two actions could result in substantial prejudice to the defendants in Action No. 2 (see Kelly v Yannotti, 4 NY2d 603 [1958]; Paramount Ins. Co. v Rosedale Gardens, 293 AD2d 235 [2002]; Schorr Bros. Dev. Corp. v Continental Ins. Co., 174 AD2d 722 [1991]; Dreizen v Morris I. Stoler, Inc., supra). Accordingly, the motion should have been denied. Altman, J.P., Krausman, Goldstein and Mastro, JJ., concur.

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

In an action to recover damages for personal injuries (Action No. 1), and an action to recover damages for negligence and breach of contract (Action No. 2), Whitman Group, Ltd., the defendant in Action No. 2, appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Suffolk County (Cohalan, J.), dated May 28, 2003, which granted the motion of the plaintiff in Action No. 1 for a joint trial of Action Nos. 1 and 2.

Ordered that the order is reversed, on the law, with costs, and the motion is denied.

The Supreme Court erred in granting the motion of the plaintiff in Action No. 1 for a joint trial of Action No. 1, an action to recover damages for personal injuries sustained on a boat, and Action No. 2, an action to recover damages for the negligent failure to provide adequate liability and casualty insurance coverage for the boat and for breach of contract, since the two actions do not involve common questions of law or fact (see CPLR 602 [a]; Johnson v Berger, 171 AD2d 728 [1991]; Dreizen v Morris I. Stoler, Inc., 98 AD2d 759 [1983]). Moreover, a joint trial of these two actions could result in substantial prejudice to the defendants in Action No. 2 (see Kelly v Yannotti, 4 NY2d 603 [1958]; Paramount Ins. Co. v Rosedale Gardens, 293 AD2d 235 [2002]; Schorr Bros. Dev. Corp. v Continental Ins. Co., 174 AD2d 722 [1991]; Dreizen v Morris I. Stoler, Inc., supra). Accordingly, the motion should have been denied. Altman, J.P., Krausman, Goldstein and Mastro, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

7 A.D.3d 568, 777 N.Y.S.2d 159, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/golfo-v-loevner-nyappdiv-2004.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack