Williams v. Mascitti

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Williams v. Mascitti

71 A.D.2d 813, 419 N.Y.S.2d 404, 1979 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 13042

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

DecidedJuly 13, 1979

StatusPublished

Cited by7 cases

This text of 71 A.D.2d 813 (Williams v. Mascitti) 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

Williams v. Mascitti, 71 A.D.2d 813, 419 N.Y.S.2d 404, 1979 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 13042 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1979).

Pincite

Opinion

Orders unanimously reversed, without costs, and motion granted. Memorandum: It was an improvident exercise of discretion for Special Term to deny a joint trial or to condition its approval thereof upon stipulation that defendants waive a jury. The pleadings disclose a commonality of context from which both actions emanate. While a lengthy prejudicial delay resulting from joinder would require denial of the motion, plaintiffs have failed to show delay which would prejudice a substantial right of defendants. The burden of showing that joinder will prejudice a substantial right rests upon the party opposing the motion (146 North Salina St. v Unigard Jamestown Mut. Ins. Co., 54 AD2d 1129). Absent such a showing, the existence of common questions of law or fact justify the grant of a motion for joint trial (CPLR 602, subd [a]; Wilhelmsen v Bolán Sales, 54 AD2d 615). Where feasible, joint trial should be had to reduce the cost of litigation, make more economical use of court time, and speed the [814]*814disposition of cases (Matter of City of Rochester v Levin, 57 AD2d 700). Since it appears that there are common questions of fact as to the conduct of parties in an attorney-client and business relationship, a joint trial is appropriate (L. G. J. K. Realty Corp. v Drimer, 48 AD2d 670). (Appeal from orders of Monroe Supreme Court—joint trial.) Present—Cardamone, J. P., Simons, Hancock, Jr., Callahan and Witmer, JJ.

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

Orders unanimously reversed, without costs, and motion granted. Memorandum: It was an improvident exercise of discretion for Special Term to deny a joint trial or to condition its approval thereof upon stipulation that defendants waive a jury. The pleadings disclose a commonality of context from which both actions emanate. While a lengthy prejudicial delay resulting from joinder would require denial of the motion, plaintiffs have failed to show delay which would prejudice a substantial right of defendants. The burden of showing that joinder will prejudice a substantial right rests upon the party opposing the motion (146 North Salina St. v Unigard Jamestown Mut. Ins. Co., 54 AD2d 1129). Absent such a showing, the existence of common questions of law or fact justify the grant of a motion for joint trial (CPLR 602, subd [a]; Wilhelmsen v Bolán Sales, 54 AD2d 615). Where feasible, joint trial should be had to reduce the cost of litigation, make more economical use of court time, and speed the [814]*814disposition of cases (Matter of City of Rochester v Levin, 57 AD2d 700). Since it appears that there are common questions of fact as to the conduct of parties in an attorney-client and business relationship, a joint trial is appropriate (L. G. J. K. Realty Corp. v Drimer, 48 AD2d 670). (Appeal from orders of Monroe Supreme Court—joint trial.) Present—Cardamone, J. P., Simons, Hancock, Jr., Callahan and Witmer, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

71 A.D.2d 813, 419 N.Y.S.2d 404, 1979 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 13042, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/williams-v-mascitti-nyappdiv-1979.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack