Opinion
April 16, 1992
Appeal from the Supreme Court, New York County (Carmen Beauchamp Ciparick, J.).
Plaintiff's action for legal malpractice and defendant's action for legal fees involve common questions of law and fact making consolidation appropriate (CPLR 602 [a]; Cornell v Reed, 35 A.D.2d 809). There is no merit to defendant's argument that consolidation should be denied because its action for legal fees is not triable before a jury. Nor is there merit to defendant's argument that consolidation would cause undue delay, as neither side has a premium on delay (see, Tortorello v Tortorello, 161 A.D.2d 633).
Concur — Carro, J.P., Kupferman, Asch and Smith, JJ.