Opinion
September 30, 1997
Appeal from the Supreme Court, Oneida County, Buckley, J.
Present — Green, J.P., Pine, Wisner, Balio and Fallon, JJ.
We reject defendants' contention that Supreme Court abused its discretion in granting that part of plaintiffs' motion seeking a trial preference. Plaintiffs made a sufficient showing that the interests of justice will be served by an early trial ( see, CPLR 3403 [a] [3]; see also, Kellman v. 45 Tiemann Assocs., 213 A.D.2d 151, affd 87 N.Y.2d 871).
As a result of our decision in the prior appeal of this case ( see, Spratt v. General Elec. Co., 237 A.D.2d 922), the third-party action and the main action in this case involve common factual and legal issues, including the issues of liability and apportionment of fault between the parties. Therefore, we conclude that the actions should be tried together and that the court abused its discretion in granting that part of the motion of plaintiffs seeking to sever their action from the third-party action ( see, Shanley v. Callanan Indus., 54 N.Y.2d 52, 57). We modify the order therefore by denying that part of plaintiffs' motion.