Opinion
June 5, 1997
Appeal from the Supreme Court, New York County (Walter Tolub, J.).
The IAS Court properly exercised its discretion in denying the motion. The claims in the two actions are sufficiently intertwined that one trial is both appropriate and judicially efficient ( see, Erbach Fin. Corp. v. Royal Bank, 203 A.D.2d 80). Furthermore, plaintiffs have failed to demonstrate prejudice with respect to any substantial right, or that the limited discovery sought by the third-party defendants would unduly delay the trial, particularly since the court addressed such contingency, stating that "if discovery is not completed by the time this action is to be tried then the plaintiffs may renew this application, which would be viewed favorably by the Court."
Concur — Sullivan, J.P., Ellerin, Tom, Mazzarelli and Andrias, JJ.