From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Tammany v. Bloom

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Apr 10, 1958
5 A.D.2d 996 (N.Y. App. Div. 1958)

Opinion

April 10, 1958


Four actions, two in the Supreme Court, Putnam County, and two in the Supreme Court, New York County, were instituted as the result of a collision between two motor vehicles in Putnam County. The two New York County actions were consolidated, as were the two Putnam County actions. The instant motion by appellants, made thereafter, to consolidate the four actions for trial in Putnam County, was denied. Order reversed, without costs, and motion granted. In our opinion, respondent Bloom failed to show that such consolidation will prejudice a substantial right. (Cf. Shea v. Benjamin, 275 App. Div. 1003; Kelly v. John Vogel, Inc., 279 App. Div. 797; Littman v. Jacobowski, 2 A.D.2d 898.) The order to be entered hereon may provide that respondent Bloom, as plaintiff in Action No. 3, which action was first commenced, may have the right to open and close. ( Kelly v. John Vogel, Inc., supra; Lehman v. Dictograph Prods., 5 A.D.2d 688.) Nolan, P.J., Wenzel and Hallinan, JJ., concur; Beldock and Kleinfeld, JJ., dissent and vote to affirm. Settle order on notice.


Summaries of

Tammany v. Bloom

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Apr 10, 1958
5 A.D.2d 996 (N.Y. App. Div. 1958)
Case details for

Tammany v. Bloom

Case Details

Full title:GEORGE TAMMANY, an Infant, by PAUL A. TAMMANY, His Guardian ad Litem, et…

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

Date published: Apr 10, 1958

Citations

5 A.D.2d 996 (N.Y. App. Div. 1958)

Citing Cases

Root v. United Airlines

The burden of showing prejudice rests upon the party opposing consolidation. ( Sherlock v. Manwaren, 208 App.…

Davis v. Williams

The order should be unanimously reversed upon the law and facts, with $10 costs and taxable disbursements to…