232 A.D.2d 246 648 N.Y.S.2d 298

Elaine Tarshish, Appellant, v Associated Dry Goods Corporation, Doing Business as Lord & Taylor, et al., Respondents. (Action No. 1.) Elaine Tarshish, Appellant, v Port Authority of New York and New Jersey et al., Respondents. (Action No. 2.)

[648 NYS2d 298]

—Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Beverly Cohen, J.), entered March 31, 1995, which, inter alia, denied plaintiff’s application for consolidation of the two actions, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

The motion court properly exercised its discretion in deny*247ing consolidation of the actions. Consolidation would he highly prejudicial to the common defendant, Ogden-Allied Maintenance Corp. since "[presentation of both claims to the same jury would tend to bolster each claim, to defendants’ disadvantage” (Bradford v Coleman Catholic High School, 110 AD2d 965, 966). We also note that the two actions are at very different stages of the litigation process (see, Dias v Berman, 188 AD2d 331). We find plaintiff’s remaining contentions to be without merit. Concur—Milonas, J. P., Wallaeh, Nardelli, Tom and Mazzarelli, JJ.

Tarshish v. Associated Dry Goods Corp.
232 A.D.2d 246 648 N.Y.S.2d 298

Case Details

Name
Tarshish v. Associated Dry Goods Corp.
Decision Date
Oct 15, 1996
Citations

232 A.D.2d 246

648 N.Y.S.2d 298

Jurisdiction
New York

References

Referencing

Nothing yet... Still searching!

Referenced By

Nothing yet... Still searching!