Paolo v. Eilat

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Paolo v. Eilat

51 A.D.2d 585, 378 N.Y.S.2d 770, 1976 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 10880

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

DecidedJanuary 26, 1976

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 51 A.D.2d 585 (Paolo v. Eilat) 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

Paolo v. Eilat, 51 A.D.2d 585, 378 N.Y.S.2d 770, 1976 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 10880 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1976).

Pincite

Opinion

In two negligence actions to recover damages for personal injuries, etc., Gerald Friedman, a defendant in each action, appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Suffolk County, dated June 2, 1975, which denied his motion to consolidate the action pending in Kings County with the action pending in Suffolk County. Order reversed, in the exercise of discretion in the interest of justice, without costs, and motion granted. Under the circumstances, wherein these actions arise out of the same automobile accident, it was an improvident exercise of discretion to deny consolidation (see Edwards v Lewin, 284 App Div 28; Liotta v Pollack, 21 AD2d 934). Our reversal is without prejudice to a motion by the plaintiffs in Action No. 2 to change venue to Nassau County, where the accident occurred, or to any other county, pursuant to CPLR 510 (subd 3), upon a showing that the convenience of material witnesses will be promoted by the change (cf. Krieger v Concord Hotel, 29 AD2d 875). Gulotta, P. J., Latham, Margett, Damiani and Christ, JJ., concur.

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

In two negligence actions to recover damages for personal injuries, etc., Gerald Friedman, a defendant in each action, appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Suffolk County, dated June 2, 1975, which denied his motion to consolidate the action pending in Kings County with the action pending in Suffolk County. Order reversed, in the exercise of discretion in the interest of justice, without costs, and motion granted. Under the circumstances, wherein these actions arise out of the same automobile accident, it was an improvident exercise of discretion to deny consolidation (see Edwards v Lewin, 284 App Div 28; Liotta v Pollack, 21 AD2d 934). Our reversal is without prejudice to a motion by the plaintiffs in Action No. 2 to change venue to Nassau County, where the accident occurred, or to any other county, pursuant to CPLR 510 (subd 3), upon a showing that the convenience of material witnesses will be promoted by the change (cf. Krieger v Concord Hotel, 29 AD2d 875). Gulotta, P. J., Latham, Margett, Damiani and Christ, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

51 A.D.2d 585, 378 N.Y.S.2d 770, 1976 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 10880, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/paolo-v-eilat-nyappdiv-1976.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack