Opinion
July 27, 1992
Appeal from the Supreme Court, Richmond County (Sangiorgio, J.).
Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.
The plaintiffs, four chiropractors and a medical doctor, brought this action, as assignees, against various insurance companies for reimbursement for professional services (particularly, thermography and electromyography [hereinafter EMG] tests) rendered to patients under Insurance Law article 51 (hereinafter the No-Fault Law) after the insurance companies had, in whole or in part, denied the submitted claims. At that time, the New York State Insurance Department had not yet established fee schedules for the particular tests for which the plaintiffs sought to be reimbursed. Three of the insurance companies, Allstate Insurance Company, Liberty Mutual Insurance Company, and Royal Insurance Company, moved to consolidate this action with other actions against them of a similar nature (i.e., where they had denied claims for thermography or EMG's under the No-Fault Law) brought by chiropractors mainly in Nassau County, Queens County, and Richmond County. Allstate also moved separately to consolidate certain actions brought by the plaintiff Stephens (one of the plaintiffs in the present action) in the Civil Court, Richmond County, seeking similar relief arising out of different claims.
We find that the Supreme Court did not improvidently exercise its discretion in denying that relief. It is well settled that a motion for consolidation is addressed to the sound discretion of the trial court, and absent a showing of substantial prejudice by the party opposing the motion, consolidation is proper where there are common questions of law and fact (see, Zupich v Flushing Hosp. Med. Ctr., 156 A.D.2d 677; T T Enters. v Gralnick, 127 A.D.2d 651; Marshall v. Monegro Investors, 132 A.D.2d 651). However, in this case, we find no reason to disturb the court's sound exercise of its discretion denying consolidation. The actions arise out of separate incidents and separate claims by the plaintiffs (see, Robertson Co. v. New York Convention Ctr. Dev. Corp., 160 A.D.2d 524; see also, Bender v. Underwood, 93 A.D.2d 747). Additionally, consolidation might prove too unwieldy (see, Barbilex Assocs. v. Pesaitis, 113 Misc.2d 436), and the resulting delay would substantially prejudice the plaintiffs (see, Pierce v. International Harvester Co., 65 A.D.2d 254, 258).
We find it unnecessary to reach any other issue. Rosenblatt, J.P., Miller, O'Brien and Ritter, JJ., concur.