Opinion
January 25, 1999.
Appeal from the Supreme Court, Suffolk County (Doyle, J.).
Ordered that the order is affirmed insofar as appealed from, without costs or disbursements.
The Supreme Court providently exercised its discretion in directing a joint trial since there exists a common question of fact regarding the relative fault of the parties in Action No. 3 in their failure to procure a policy to provide coverage for the benefit of the plaintiffs in Action Nos. 1, 2, and 4 through 7 which would have protected those plaintiffs against the actual cost of replacing the condominium in the event of a fire. In the interest of justice and judicial economy, a single trial would be more appropriate ( see, Farrel v. Lautob Realty Corp., 204 A.D.2d 597; Heck v. Waldbaum's Supermarkets, 134 A.D.2d 568; Megyesi v. Automotive Rentals, 115 A.D.2d 596). Moreover, Clair Odell Group Insurance has failed to demonstrate prejudice to a substantial right as a result of a joint trial ( see, CPLR 602; Ryckman v. Schlessinger-Levi-Polatsch-Tydings, 225 A.D.2d 603; North Side Sav. Bank v. Nyack Waterfront Assocs., 203 A.D.2d 439; Donaldson v. Jamaica Buses, 172 A.D.2d 800; Heck v. Waldbaum's Supermarkets, supra).
Miller, J.P., Thompson, McGinity and Luciano, JJ., concur.