RODGERS v. WORRELL


214 A.D.2d 553 (1995)

625 N.Y.S.2d 64

James Rodgers et al., Respondents, v. Russell Worrell et al., Appellants, et al., Defendants. (Action No. 1.) Melody Gross et al., Respondents, v. Russell Worrell et al., Appellants, et al., Defendants. (Action No. 2.) Michael Balletta et al., Respondents, v. Russell Worrell et al., Appellants, et al., Defendants. (Action No. 3.)

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York, Second Department.

April 3, 1995


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.


Comment

1000 Characters Remaining

Leagle.com reserves the right to edit or remove comments but is under no obligation to do so, or to explain individual moderation decisions.

User Comments

Listed below are the cases that are cited in this Featured Case. Click the citation to see the full text of the cited case. Citations are also linked in the body of the Featured Case.

Cited Cases

  • No Cases Found

Listed below are those cases in which this Featured Case is cited. Click on the case name to see the full text of the citing case.

Citing Cases