Opinion
12273N Index No. 158787/18 Case No. 2020-01625
11-05-2020
L.B., etc., Plaintiff–Respondent, v. STAHL YORK AVE. CO., et al., Defendants–Appellants.
Ingram Yuzek Gainen Carroll & Bertolotti, LLP, New York (Caitlin L. Bronner of counsel), for appellants. Levy Konigsberg LLP, New York (Renner K. Walker of counsel), for respondent.
Ingram Yuzek Gainen Carroll & Bertolotti, LLP, New York (Caitlin L. Bronner of counsel), for appellants.
Levy Konigsberg LLP, New York (Renner K. Walker of counsel), for respondent.
Gische, J.P., Webber, Gonza´lez, Scarpulla, JJ.
Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Lynn R. Kotler, J.), entered January 31, 2020, which denied defendants' motion for removal of a summary nonpayment proceeding against the subject infant's parents, pending in Civil Court, and consolidation with the infant's personal injury action based on lead paint poisoning, pending in Supreme Court, unanimously affirmed, without costs.
CPLR 602(a) gives the trial court discretion to consolidate actions involving common questions of law or fact. While there are some overlapping facts concerning lead paint in each case, they do not so predominate as to find any abuse of discretion in denying consolidation. The majority of time during which the infant's parents failed to pay their rent in the summary proceeding occurred in the two-year period after the lead paint abatement when the case was taken off the calendar to make further unexplained repairs (see Scheff, 203 A.D.2d at 152, 610 N.Y.S.2d 252 ). Even where there are common questions of law or fact, consolidation of actions is properly denied if the actions are at markedly different procedural stages and consolidation would result in undue delay in the resolution of either matter ( Abrams v. Port Authority Trans–Hudson Corp. , 1 A.D.3d 118, 766 N.Y.S.2d 429 [1st Dept. 2003] ). Given the "strong preference" for resolving summary landlord-tenant proceedings in Civil Court ( 44–46 W. 65th Apt. Corp. v. Stvan , 3 A.D.3d 440, 441, 772 N.Y.S.2d 4 [1st Dept. 2004] ), particularly where complete relief is available in that court ( Post v. 120 E. End Ave. , 62 N.Y.2d 19, 28, 475 N.Y.S.2d 821, 464 N.E.2d 125 [1984] ; Scheff v. 230 E. 73rd Owners Corp. , 203 A.D.2d 151, 152, 610 N.Y.S.2d 252 [1st Dept. 1994] ), there was no abuse of discretion in the trial court denying consolidation.