Opinion
January 27, 1992
Appeal from the Supreme Court, Kings County (Scholnick, J.).
Ordered that the order is reversed, with one bill of cost to the appellants appearing separately and filing separate briefs, and the motion is denied.
The court erred in exercising its discretion in granting the motion for a severance. No prejudice to a substantial right of any party was demonstrated requiring a severance. The circumstances of this case are of the type that are suited for resolution in a single trial, as separate trials with different juries present the likely possibility of inconsistent verdicts (see, Philippson v. Hexalon Real Estate, 111 A.D.2d 126, 127; Okin v. White Plains Hosp., 97 A.D.2d 399). Moreover, the factual and legal questions involved in the causes of action against the defendants are sufficiently related so that the interests of justice and judicial economy call for a single trial (see, Shanley v. Callanan Indus., 54 N.Y.2d 52).
In addition, we note that the trial court is free, if in its discretion it sees fit to do so, to conduct a modified bifurcated trial before a single jury, as proposed by the plaintiffs in their alternative argument. Eiber, J.P., Rosenblatt, O'Brien and Ritter, JJ., concur.