Opinion
December 12, 1988
Appeal from the Supreme Court, Queens County (Dufficy, J.).
Ordered that the order is reversed insofar as appealed from, on the law, with costs, the complaint in action No. 2 is reinstated and action No. 1 and action No. 2 are consolidated under index No. 3459/83.
The Supreme Court erred in dismissing the complaint in action No. 2 as premature. The defendant husband's stock in the corporate defendant in action No. 2 represents a significant marital asset, the value of which, we note, has been found to have been substantially and deliberately diminished. Under the circumstances of this case, we conclude that the plaintiff wife should be permitted to maintain an action to preserve the asset's value. Furthermore, since action No. 1 and action No. 2 involve common questions of fact, they should be consolidated (see, CPLR 602 [a]). Mangano, J.P., Brown, Kooper and Harwood, JJ., concur.