Opinion
October 29, 1951.
In an action, forty-seven plaintiffs in twenty-four separate causes of action seek a mandatory injunction to compel defendant to make certain alterations, or to supply alleged omissions, in houses constructed by defendant and sold to plaintiffs under separate contracts. Plaintiffs moved for an injunction pendente lite for certain relief, and defendant cross-moved to compel plaintiffs to serve separate amended complaints and for severance of the actions. Both motions were denied. Defendant appeals from so much of the order as denied its cross motion. Order, insofar as appealed from, affirmed, with $10 costs and disbursements. ( Akely v. Kinnicutt, 238 N.Y. 466; Great Northern Tel. Co. v. Yokohama Specie Bank, 297 N.Y. 135; Chiba v. Kurutz, 263 App. Div. 33; Rosenfeld v. Oleck, 261 App. Div. 296; Eagle Bay Park Assn. v. Longstaff, 256 App. Div. 1036.) Nolan, P.J., Johnston, Adel, Wenzel and MacCrate, JJ., concur.