Ryckman v. Schlessinger-Levi-Polatsch-Tydings

225 A.D.2d 603, 639 N.Y.2d 729
Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York·Decided March 11, 1996·Published·Cited by 6 cases

Opinion

It is well established that the question of whether to direct a joint trial rests with the sound discretion of the trial court. When there are common questions of law or fact, a joint trial is warranted unless the opposing party demonstrates prejudice to a substantial right (see, CPLR 602; North Side Sav. Bank v Nyack Waterfront Assocs., 203 AD2d 439; Heck v Waldbaum’s Supermarkets, 134 AD2d 568).

Under the circumstances of this case, the Supreme Court did not improvidently exercise its discretion by directing a joint [604] trial only on the issue of the dates of the alleged negligence of the appellant doctors. This question of fact is common to both actions. In addition, the Supreme Court took adequate steps to ensure that the appellants would not be prejudiced by a long delay due to trying the actions together. O’Brien, J. P., Ritter, Pizzuto and Altman, JJ., concur.

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

Ryckman v. Schlessinger-Levi-Polatsch-Tydings, 225 A.D.2d 603, 639 N.Y.2d 729 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1996).

225 A.D.2d 603 (Ryckman v. Schlessinger-Levi-Polatsch-Tydings) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

American Home Mortgage Servicing, Inc. v. Sharrocks
92 A.D.3d 620 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2012)
Alizio v. Perpignano
78 A.D.3d 1087 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2010)
Pierre-Louis v. DeLonghi America, Inc.
66 A.D.3d 855 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2009)
Rahman v. Miller
257 A.D.2d 654 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1999)
Fransen v. Maniscalco
256 A.D.2d 305 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1998)