Opinion
October 2, 1989
Appeal from the Supreme Court, Nassau County (Collins, J.).
Ordered that the order is modified, by deleting therefrom the provision granting the plaintiff's motion to sever the fourth-party action and substituting therefor a provision denying that motion; as so modified, the order is affirmed, with one bill of costs to the appellant payable by the plaintiff-respondent and the defendant third-party plaintiff-respondent appearing separately and filing separate briefs; and it is further,
Ordered that the appellant and the fourth-party defendant are granted leave to conduct those discovery proceedings which they deem to be appropriate, such discovery to be completed within 60 days after service upon them of a copy of this decision and order, with notice of entry; and it is further,
Ordered that pending the completion of discovery, the action shall remain on the Trial Calendar.
We conclude that the granting of the plaintiff's motion to sever the fourth-party action constituted an improvident exercise of discretion. The questions of law and fact involved in the main action and the third-party action are inextricably interwoven with those in the fourth-party action. Therefore, a single trial is appropriate in furtherance of the interests of judicial economy (see, e.g., Shanley v Callanan Indus., 54 N.Y.2d 52, 57; Pescatore v American Export Lines, 131 A.D.2d 739; Power Test Petroleum Distribs. v Northville Indus. Corp., 114 A.D.2d 405, 407). Although there has already been considerable delay in the progress of this action, there has been no demonstration that the brief additional delay to permit discovery in the fourth-party action will cause substantial prejudice to the plaintiff in the main action or to the defendant third-party plaintiff in the third-party action (see, CPLR 603, 1010; Pescatore v American Export Lines, supra; Coppola v Robb, 55 A.D.2d 634). Any alleged prejudice to the adverse parties may be cured by the direction that discovery in the fourth-party action be completed expeditiously within the time frame imposed herein (see, e.g., Zaveta v Portelli, 127 A.D.2d 760; Fries v Sid Tool Co., 90 A.D.2d 512; Johnston Prods. Corp. v ATI, Inc., 87 A.D.2d 604). Thompson, J.P., Bracken, Kunzeman and Rubin, JJ., concur.