From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Rodgers v. Worrell

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Apr 3, 1995
214 A.D.2d 553 (N.Y. App. Div. 1995)

Opinion

April 3, 1995

Appeal from the Supreme Court, Nassau County (Roncallo, J.).


Ordered that the appeal by the County of Nassau is dismissed, without costs or disbursements, for failure to perfect the same in accordance with the rules of this Court (see, 22 NYCRR 670.8 [c], [e]); and it is further,

Ordered that the order is modified, on the law, by deleting the provision thereof which granted those branches of the plaintiffs' motion which were to compel Hudson General Corporation to comply with items 5 and 6 of the notices for discovery and inspection, and substituting therefor a provision granting those branches of the motion directing Hudson General Corporation to comply with items 5 and 6 of the notices for discovery and inspection only to the extent that those items relate to complaints received during the periods in which the defendants Russell Worrell and Dorothy Stewart were employed by Valley Transit, Inc.; as so modified, the order is affirmed, without costs or disbursements.

A motion to consolidate actions pursuant to CPLR 602 (a) rests in the sound discretion of the trial court (see, Marshall v Monegro Investors, 132 A.D.2d 651; Cushing v Cushing, 85 A.D.2d 809). Absent a showing of prejudice to a substantial right by a party opposing the motion, consolidation should be granted where common questions of law or fact exist (see, Marshall v Monegro Investors, supra; Cushing v Cushing, supra). In this case, we find no basis to disturb the Supreme Court's decision to consolidate the actions.

As to the notices for discovery and inspection (hereinafter the Notices), items 5 and 6 of both Notices request any complaints pertaining to the defendant Worrell or the bus driven by him, and any complaints pertaining to the bus for which the defendant Stewart was employed as a bus matron, respectively, for the period 1980 to December 5, 1990. Although it is not clear from the record when Worrell and Stewart were employed by the defendant Valley Transit, Inc., the plaintiffs' requests for complaints should be limited to Worrell's and Stewart's respective periods of employment. Copertino, J.P., Pizzuto, Joy and Friedmann, JJ., concur.


Summaries of

Rodgers v. Worrell

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Apr 3, 1995
214 A.D.2d 553 (N.Y. App. Div. 1995)
Case details for

Rodgers v. Worrell

Case Details

Full title:JAMES RODGERS et al., Respondents, v. RUSSELL WORRELL et al., Appellants…

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

Date published: Apr 3, 1995

Citations

214 A.D.2d 553 (N.Y. App. Div. 1995)
625 N.Y.S.2d 64

Citing Cases

Stracham v. Bresnick

It is well established that the power to order consolidation rests in the sound discretion of the court, and…

Pitney Bowes Credit Corp. v. Biometrics/Seafield Center

A motion to consolidate actions pursuant to CPLR 602(a) rests in the sound discretion of the trial court…