Witherspoon v. New York City Housing Authority

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Witherspoon v. New York City Housing Authority

238 A.D.2d 276, 656 N.Y.S.2d 629, 1997 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4277

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

DecidedApril 24, 1997

StatusPublished

Cited by5 cases

This text of 238 A.D.2d 276 (Witherspoon v. New York City Housing Authority) 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

Witherspoon v. New York City Housing Authority, 238 A.D.2d 276, 656 N.Y.S.2d 629, 1997 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4277 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1997).

Pincite

Opinion

—Order, Supreme Court, Bronx County (Stanley Green, J.), entered on or about November 29, 1995, which granted plaintiffs motion for a joint trial of two personal injury actions, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

Here, two personal injury actions arising out of separate accidents involve a claim by plaintiff that the injuries alleged in the first action were exacerbated by the accident alleged in the second action. A claim by the defendant in one of the actions that the plaintiffs injuries were caused by the negligence of the defendant in the other action mandates that the two actions should be tried together, absent a particularized showing of prejudice (see, Kupferschmid v Hennessy, 221 AD2d 225; Richardson v Uess Leasing Corp., 191 AD2d 394). We perceive no threat of jury confusion or other prejudice in the present circumstances, where one of the defendants is named in both actions. Concur—Milonas, J. P., Ellerin, Tom and Mazzarelli, JJ.

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

—Order, Supreme Court, Bronx County (Stanley Green, J.), entered on or about November 29, 1995, which granted plaintiffs motion for a joint trial of two personal injury actions, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

Here, two personal injury actions arising out of separate accidents involve a claim by plaintiff that the injuries alleged in the first action were exacerbated by the accident alleged in the second action. A claim by the defendant in one of the actions that the plaintiffs injuries were caused by the negligence of the defendant in the other action mandates that the two actions should be tried together, absent a particularized showing of prejudice (see, Kupferschmid v Hennessy, 221 AD2d 225; Richardson v Uess Leasing Corp., 191 AD2d 394). We perceive no threat of jury confusion or other prejudice in the present circumstances, where one of the defendants is named in both actions. Concur—Milonas, J. P., Ellerin, Tom and Mazzarelli, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

238 A.D.2d 276, 656 N.Y.S.2d 629, 1997 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4277, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/witherspoon-v-new-york-city-housing-authority-nyappdiv-1997.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack