Hasselback v. Verducci

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Hasselback v. Verducci

134 A.D.2d 325, 520 N.Y.S.2d 801, 1987 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 50509

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

DecidedNovember 9, 1987

StatusPublished

This text of 134 A.D.2d 325 (Hasselback v. Verducci) 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

Hasselback v. Verducci, 134 A.D.2d 325, 520 N.Y.S.2d 801, 1987 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 50509 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1987).

Pincite

Opinion

In (1) an action to recover damages for personal injuries, etc., sustained in an automobile accident, and (2) a medical malpractice action, the plaintiffs appeal, as limited by their brief, from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Hirsch, J.), entered November 30, 1984, as upon their motion for full consolidation of the two actions, granted the same only to the extent of directing a trial in action No. 1 on the issue of liability in the Supreme Court, Kings County, to be followed by a joint trial of action No. 2 and the issue of damages in action No. 1 in the Supreme Court, Richmond County.

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

Action No. 1, instituted in the Supreme Court, Kings County, stems from an automobile action which resulted in personal injuries to the plaintiff Harold Hasselback. Action No. 2, instituted in the Supreme Court, Richmond County, concerns the medical care and treatment allegedly rendered to the plaintiff Harold Hasselback for the injuries sustained in [326]*326the automobile accident. The plaintiffs moved in the Supreme Court, Kings County, (1) to consolidate the two actions on the ground they involve common questions of law and fact, and (2) to designate Kings County as the venue of the consolidated action. Special Term directed a separate liability trial of the automobile action in Kings County to be followed by a joint trial of the damages phase of the automobile action together with the entire medical malpractice action in the Supreme Court, Richmond County.

We agree that this innovative determination by Special Term, in which the dissimilar motor vehicle liability issue will be tried separately from all other matters and the area of commonality in the two actions will be tried jointly, was a proper exercise of the court’s discretion. Mollen, P. J., Bracken, Rubin, Kooper and Spatt, JJ., concur.

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

In (1) an action to recover damages for personal injuries, etc., sustained in an automobile accident, and (2) a medical malpractice action, the plaintiffs appeal, as limited by their brief, from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Hirsch, J.), entered November 30, 1984, as upon their motion for full consolidation of the two actions, granted the same only to the extent of directing a trial in action No. 1 on the issue of liability in the Supreme Court, Kings County, to be followed by a joint trial of action No. 2 and the issue of damages in action No. 1 in the Supreme Court, Richmond County.

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

Action No. 1, instituted in the Supreme Court, Kings County, stems from an automobile action which resulted in personal injuries to the plaintiff Harold Hasselback. Action No. 2, instituted in the Supreme Court, Richmond County, concerns the medical care and treatment allegedly rendered to the plaintiff Harold Hasselback for the injuries sustained in [326]*326the automobile accident. The plaintiffs moved in the Supreme Court, Kings County, (1) to consolidate the two actions on the ground they involve common questions of law and fact, and (2) to designate Kings County as the venue of the consolidated action. Special Term directed a separate liability trial of the automobile action in Kings County to be followed by a joint trial of the damages phase of the automobile action together with the entire medical malpractice action in the Supreme Court, Richmond County.

We agree that this innovative determination by Special Term, in which the dissimilar motor vehicle liability issue will be tried separately from all other matters and the area of commonality in the two actions will be tried jointly, was a proper exercise of the court’s discretion. Mollen, P. J., Bracken, Rubin, Kooper and Spatt, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

134 A.D.2d 325, 520 N.Y.S.2d 801, 1987 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 50509, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/hasselback-v-verducci-nyappdiv-1987.