Shackleford v. Mills
110 A.D.2d 630, 487 N.Y.S.2d 371, 1985 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 48528
Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York·Decided April 1, 1985·Published·Cited by 6 cases
Opinion
Special Term properly exercised its discretion in denying plaintiffs’ motion for a joint trial. Involved are separate, unrelated accidents and separate trials will enable the juries to focus on the factual issues presented as to each accident (CPLR 602; Abbatepaolo v Blumberg, 7 AD2d 847; Pride v Perras, 6 AD2d 842; cf. Doll v Castiglione, 86 AD2d 711). Mollen, P. J., Titone, Lazer and Rubin, JJ., concur.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Shackleford v. Mills, 110 A.D.2d 630, 487 N.Y.S.2d 371, 1985 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 48528 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1985).
110 A.D.2d 630 (Shackleford v. Mills) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.
Related
Alburquerque v. Beautiful Village Associates Redevelopment Co.
219 A.D.2d 567 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1995)
McGee v. Cataldi
169 A.D.2d 822 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1991)
Continental Building Co. v. Town of North Salem
150 A.D.2d 518 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1989)
Brown v. Brooklyn Union Gas Co.
137 A.D.2d 479 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1988)
Boyman v. Bryant
133 A.D.2d 802 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1987)
Nichols v. Spackenkill Union Free School District
119 A.D.2d 647 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1986)