From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Tarshish v. Associated Dry Goods Corporation

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, First Department
Oct 15, 1996
232 A.D.2d 246 (N.Y. App. Div. 1996)

Opinion

October 15, 1996.

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Beverly Cohen, J.), entered March 31, 1995, which, inter alia, denied plaintiff's application for consolidation of the two actions, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

Before: Milonas, J. P., Wallach, Nardelli, Tom and Mazzarelli, JJ.


The motion court properly exercised its discretion in denying consolidation of the actions. Consolidation would be highly prejudicial to the common defendant Ogden-Allied Maintenance Corp. since "[presentation of both claims to the same jury would tend to bolster each claim, to defendants' disadvantage" ( Bradford v Coleman Catholic High School, 110 AD2d 965, 966). We also note that the two actions are at very different stages of the litigation process ( see, Dias v Berman, 188 AD2d 331). We find plaintiffs remaining contentions to be without merit.


Summaries of

Tarshish v. Associated Dry Goods Corporation

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, First Department
Oct 15, 1996
232 A.D.2d 246 (N.Y. App. Div. 1996)
Case details for

Tarshish v. Associated Dry Goods Corporation

Case Details

Full title:ELAINE TARSHISH, Appellant, v. ASSOCIATED DRY GOODS CORPORATION, Doing…

Court:Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, First Department

Date published: Oct 15, 1996

Citations

232 A.D.2d 246 (N.Y. App. Div. 1996)
648 N.Y.S.2d 298

Citing Cases

Tomasso v. Finkelstein

Counsel points out that Action # 1 is a medical malpractice action and Action # 2 alleges negligence by undue…

Rizvi v. N. Shore Hematology-Oncology Assocs., P.C.

"The burden of showing prejudice to a substantial right rests upon the party opposing a motion for…