Kelly v. John Vogel, Inc.
This text of 279 A.D. 797 (Kelly v. John Vogel, Inc.) 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.
Opinion
Both actions arose out of the same accident and, except for the questions of contributory negligence and damages, will involve precisely the same issues. Presumably the same witnesses would testify at both trials if the actions were separately tried. Respondent Yockel has failed to show that consolidation will prejudice a substantial right. (Tascio v. Citizens Bank of White Plains, 254 App. Div. 881; Scherman v. Scherman, 261 App. Div. 908; Alexander v. Odgis, 272 App. Div. 917; Shlansky & Bro. v. Grossman, 273 App. Div. 544; Shea v. Benjamin, 275 App. Div. 1003.) The order to be entered may provide that plaintiff Yockel, whose action was first commenced may have the right to open and close, on the trial of the consolidated action. Nolan, P. J., Carswell, Adel, MaeCrate and Schmidt, JJ., concur.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Related
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
279 A.D. 797, 109 N.Y.S.2d 282, 1952 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4859, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/kelly-v-john-vogel-inc-nyappdiv-1952.