Wyant v. Jensen

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Wyant v. Jensen

25 A.D.2d 388, 270 N.Y.S.2d 156, 1966 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4138

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

DecidedMay 20, 1966

StatusPublished

Cited by3 cases

This text of 25 A.D.2d 388 (Wyant v. Jensen) 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

Wyant v. Jensen, 25 A.D.2d 388, 270 N.Y.S.2d 156, 1966 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4138 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1966).

Pincite

Opinion

Reynolds, J.

This is an appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Ulster County, granting respondents’ application that the two above-entitled actions be tried together without consolidation (CPLR 602, subd. [a]).

Catherine Wyant seeks recovery for injuries allegedly resulting from separate automobile accidents occurring respectively on June 16,1963 (Action No. 2) and June 21,1963 (Action No. 1). The Trial Judge concluding that there were common questions of fact involved and that the actions could be ‘ ‘ tried together in the interests of justice without consolidation and without prejudice to a substantial right ” ordered a joint trial pursuant to CPLR 602 (subd. [a]). We can find no reason to disturb this discretionary determination. Rather, since there appears no clear showing of prejudice and particularly since only five days separate the two accidents, there are many reasons why the [389]*389actions should be tried together (Potter v. Clark, 19 A D 2d 585; 2 Weinstein-Korn-Miller, N. Y. Civ. Prac., pars. 602.01-602.19).

The order should be affirmed.

Gibson, P. J., Heklihy, Taylor and Atjlisi, JJ., concur.

Order affirmed, with costs.

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

Reynolds, J.

This is an appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Ulster County, granting respondents’ application that the two above-entitled actions be tried together without consolidation (CPLR 602, subd. [a]).

Catherine Wyant seeks recovery for injuries allegedly resulting from separate automobile accidents occurring respectively on June 16,1963 (Action No. 2) and June 21,1963 (Action No. 1). The Trial Judge concluding that there were common questions of fact involved and that the actions could be ‘ ‘ tried together in the interests of justice without consolidation and without prejudice to a substantial right ” ordered a joint trial pursuant to CPLR 602 (subd. [a]). We can find no reason to disturb this discretionary determination. Rather, since there appears no clear showing of prejudice and particularly since only five days separate the two accidents, there are many reasons why the [389]*389actions should be tried together (Potter v. Clark, 19 A D 2d 585; 2 Weinstein-Korn-Miller, N. Y. Civ. Prac., pars. 602.01-602.19).

The order should be affirmed.

Gibson, P. J., Heklihy, Taylor and Atjlisi, JJ., concur.

Order affirmed, with costs.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

25 A.D.2d 388, 270 N.Y.S.2d 156, 1966 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4138, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/wyant-v-jensen-nyappdiv-1966.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack