Johnson v. Berger

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Johnson v. Berger

171 A.D.2d 728, 567 N.Y.S.2d 284, 1991 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3351

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

DecidedMarch 11, 1991

StatusPublished

Cited by3 cases

This text of 171 A.D.2d 728 (Johnson v. Berger) 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

Johnson v. Berger, 171 A.D.2d 728, 567 N.Y.S.2d 284, 1991 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3351 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1991).

Pincite

Opinion

In an action to recover damages for legal malpractice (Action No. 1), and an action to recover damages for negligence (Action No. 3), the defendant in Action No. 3 appeals, as limited by its brief, from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Joy, J.), dated September 13, 1989, as granted that branch of the motion of the plaintiffs in Action No. 3 which was for a joint trial of Action Nos. 1 and 3.

Ordered that the order is reversed insofar as appealed from, on the law, with costs, and that branch of the motion of the plaintiffs in Action No. 3 which was for a joint trial of Action Nos. 1 and 3 is denied.

The Supreme Court erred in directing a joint trial of Action No. 1, a legal malpractice action, and Action No. 3, a negligence action brought by one of the defendants in Action No. 1 against his professional liability insurance agent, for the purpose of trial, as those actions do not involve common questions of law or fact (see, CPLR 602 [a]). Moreover, a joint trial of those actions could result in substantial prejudice (see, Marx v Minasi, 43 AD2d 943; Schwartz v Woodner & Co., 40 AD2d 1027). Thus, reversal is warranted. Bracken, J. P., Brown, O’Brien and Ritter, 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 legal malpractice (Action No. 1), and an action to recover damages for negligence (Action No. 3), the defendant in Action No. 3 appeals, as limited by its brief, from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Joy, J.), dated September 13, 1989, as granted that branch of the motion of the plaintiffs in Action No. 3 which was for a joint trial of Action Nos. 1 and 3.

Ordered that the order is reversed insofar as appealed from, on the law, with costs, and that branch of the motion of the plaintiffs in Action No. 3 which was for a joint trial of Action Nos. 1 and 3 is denied.

The Supreme Court erred in directing a joint trial of Action No. 1, a legal malpractice action, and Action No. 3, a negligence action brought by one of the defendants in Action No. 1 against his professional liability insurance agent, for the purpose of trial, as those actions do not involve common questions of law or fact (see, CPLR 602 [a]). Moreover, a joint trial of those actions could result in substantial prejudice (see, Marx v Minasi, 43 AD2d 943; Schwartz v Woodner & Co., 40 AD2d 1027). Thus, reversal is warranted. Bracken, J. P., Brown, O’Brien and Ritter, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

171 A.D.2d 728, 567 N.Y.S.2d 284, 1991 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3351, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/johnson-v-berger-nyappdiv-1991.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack