Padeh v. City of New York
This text of 2025 NY Slip Op 32011(U) (Padeh v. City of New York) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering New York Supreme Court, New York County primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.
Opinion
Padeh v City of New York 2025 NY Slip Op 32011(U) June 5, 2025 Supreme Court, New York County Docket Number: Index No.157558/2022 Judge: Hasa A. Kingo Cases posted with a "30000" identifier, i.e., 2013 NY Slip Op 30001(U), are republished from various New York State and local government sources, including the New York State Unified Court System's eCourts Service. This opinion is uncorrected and not selected for official publication. INDEX NO. 157558/2022 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 67 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 06/05/2025
SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK NEW YORK COUNTY PRESENT: HON. HASA A. KINGO PART 05M Justice ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------X INDEX NO. 157558/2022 DOV PADEH, MOTION DATE 05/16/2025 Plaintiff, MOTION SEQ. NO. 003 -v- THE CITY OF NEW YORK, EMPIRE CITY SUBWAY DECISION + ORDER ON COMPANY (LIMITED), MOTION Defendant. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------X
The following e-filed documents, listed by NYSCEF document number (Motion 003) 59, 60, 61, 62, 63, 64, 65 were read on this motion to/for CONSOLIDATE/JOIN FOR TRIAL .
Upon the foregoing documents, it is ORDERED that the motion brought by Defendant
Empire City Subway Company (Limited) (“ECS”) to consolidate this action, Index No.:
157558/2022 (Action #1), with a related action pending in this court, the Supreme Court, New
York County, bearing Index No.: 150025/2024 (Action #2) is granted without opposition. ECS
argues that consolidation pursuant to CPLR § 602 is proper because both actions arise from
identical facts and circumstances and involve common questions of law and fact.
CPLR §602 states that “[w]hen actions involving a common question of law or fact are
pending before a court, the court, upon motion … may order the actions consolidated.” A motion
to consolidate is addressed to the sound discretion of the trial court (Progressive Ins. Co. v
Vasquez, 10 AD3d 518, 519 [1st Dept 2004]). “There is a preference to join cases for discovery
and trial in the interests of judicial economy and ease of decision-making where there are common
questions of law and fact” between the two actions involved (Lema v 1148 Corp., 176 AD3d 653,
654 [1st Dept 2019]). Absent a showing of prejudice to a substantial right by a party opposing the
157558/2022 PADEH, DOV vs. THE CITY OF NEW YORK, Page 1 of 4 Motion No. 003
1 of 4 [* 1] INDEX NO. 157558/2022 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 67 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 06/05/2025
motion, consolidation should be granted where common questions of fact or law exist (Lema, 176
AD3d at 654).
Here, it is undisputed that both actions arise from an incident that occurred on May 20,
2022. Specifically, Plaintiff alleges that he was injured when he was thrown from his scooter after
riding over a portion of freshly poured asphalt on West 34th Street near its intersection with
Seventh Avenue. Thus, both actions arise out of the same accident and involve the same questions
of law and fact. Additionally, there is no opposition to the motion and no showing of prejudice to
a substantial right. Moreover, discovery is in its infancy and depositions have not been held.
Therefore, a full consolidation of the two actions will minimize court expense, as well as the time
witnesses and parties must appear, and will expedite discovery while avoiding duplicate testimony.
Accordingly, it is hereby
ORDERED that the motion is granted and the above-captioned action is consolidated in
this court with DOV PADEH vs. CONSOLIDATED EDISON COMPANY OF NEW YORK,
Index No. 150025/2024 (Action #2), pending in this court; and it is further
ORDERED that the consolidation shall take place under Index No. 157558/2022 and the
consolidated action shall bear the following caption:
SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK COUNTY OF NEW YORK -------------------------------------------------------------------X Index No.: 157558/2022 DOV PADEH,
Plaintiff,
-against-
THE CITY OF NEW YORK, EMPIRE CITY SUBWAY COMPANY (LIMITED), and CONSOLIDATED EDISON COMPANY OF NEW YORK,
Defendants.
157558/2022 PADEH, DOV vs. THE CITY OF NEW YORK, Page 2 of 4 Motion No. 003
2 of 4 [* 2] INDEX NO. 157558/2022 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 67 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 06/05/2025
-------------------------------------------------------------------X
And it is further
ORDERED that the pleadings in the actions hereby consolidated shall stand as the
pleadings in the consolidated action; and it is further
ORDERED that, within 30 days from entry of this order, movant shall serve a copy of this
order with notice of entry on the Clerk of the Court, who shall consolidate the documents in the
actions hereby consolidated and shall mark his records to reflect the consolidation; and it is further
ORDERED that counsel for the movant shall contact the staff of the Clerk of the Court to
arrange for the effectuation of the consolidation hereby directed; and it is further
ORDERED that service of this order upon the Clerk of the Court shall be made in
accordance with the procedures set forth in the Protocol on Courthouse and County Clerk
Procedures for Electronically Filed Cases (accessible at the “E-Filing” page on the court’s
website); and it is further
ORDERED that, as applicable and insofar as is practical, the Clerk of this Court shall file
the documents being consolidated under Index No. 157558/2022 in the New York State Courts
Electronic Filing System or make appropriate notations of such documents in the e-filing records
of the court so as to ensure access to the documents in the consolidated action; and it is further
ORDERED that, within 30 days from entry of this order, movant shall serve a copy of this
order with notice of entry on the Clerk of the General Clerk’s Office, who is hereby directed to
reflect the consolidation by appropriately marking the court's records; and it is further
ORDERED that such service upon the Clerk of the General Clerk’s Office shall be made
in accordance with the procedures set forth in the aforesaid Protocol; and it is further
157558/2022 PADEH, DOV vs. THE CITY OF NEW YORK, Page 3 of 4 Motion No. 003
3 of 4 [* 3] INDEX NO. 157558/2022 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 67 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 06/05/2025
ORDERED that the parties shall appear for a status conference in the Differentiated Case
Management Part located in Room 103 of 80 Centre Street, New York, New York, 10013 on July
15, 2025, at 2:00 PM.
This constitutes the decision and order of the court.
6/5/2025 DATE HASA A. KINGO, J.S.C. CHECK ONE: CASE DISPOSED X NON-FINAL DISPOSITION
□ X GRANTED DENIED GRANTED IN PART OTHER
APPLICATION: SETTLE ORDER SUBMIT ORDER
□ CHECK IF APPROPRIATE: INCLUDES TRANSFER/REASSIGN FIDUCIARY APPOINTMENT REFERENCE
157558/2022 PADEH, DOV vs. THE CITY OF NEW YORK, Page 4 of 4 Motion No. 003
4 of 4 [* 4]
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Related
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
2025 NY Slip Op 32011(U), Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/padeh-v-city-of-new-york-nysupctnewyork-2025.