Opinion
November 9, 1987
Appeal from the Supreme Court, Kings County (Hirsch, J.).
Ordered that the order is affirmed insofar as appealed from, with costs.
Action No. 1, instituted in the Supreme Court, Kings County, stems from an automobile action which resulted in personal injuries to the plaintiff Harold Hasselback. Action No. 2, instituted in the Supreme Court, Richmond County, concerns the medical care and treatment allegedly rendered to the plaintiff Harold Hasselback for the injuries sustained in the automobile accident. The plaintiffs moved in the Supreme Court, Kings County, (1) to consolidate the two actions on the ground they involve common questions of law and fact, and (2) to designate Kings County as the venue of the consolidated action. Special Term directed a separate liability trial of the automobile action in Kings County to be followed by a joint trial of the damages phase of the automobile action together with the entire medical malpractice action in the Supreme Court, Richmond County.
We agree that this innovative determination by Special Term, in which the dissimilar motor vehicle liability issue will be tried separately from all other matters and the area of commonality in the two actions will be tried jointly, was a proper exercise of the court's discretion. Mollen, P.J., Bracken, Rubin, Kooper and Spatt, JJ., concur.