[Download] "Frank Mallack Et Al. v. White Mountain Laundry" by Supreme Court of New York " eBook PDF Kindle ePub Free
eBook details
- Title: Frank Mallack Et Al. v. White Mountain Laundry
- Author : Supreme Court of New York
- Release Date : January 14, 1960
- Genre: Law,Books,Professional & Technical,
- Pages : * pages
- Size : 66 KB
Description
Plaintiffs, while working in a grease pit on a truck owned by the defendant White Mountain Laundry, Inc., sustained injuries as a result of an explosion in the pit. The pit is in Mount Vernon and is on premises leased by the defendant Laundry from the other defendant Uliano, the owner thereof. In the Westchester action (No. 1), plaintiff Mallack, a resident of Westchester County, commenced the action against both defendants in that county. In the Bronx action (No. 2), plaintiff Bracken, a resident of Bronx County, commenced the action against both defendants in that county. Both actions were commenced at the same time; issue in each action was joined on the same date; and each action was placed on the Jury Calendar in the respective counties for the March 1960 Term. Defendant Laundry moved to consolidate the actions in Westchester County. Both plaintiffs, represented by the same attorneys, objected on the ground that the plaintiff Bracken in the Bronx action would be prejudiced by the consolidation, in that there is a delay of some 45 months in obtaining a jury trial in tort actions in Westchester County, whereas there is a delay of only 24 months in Bronx County. Since the actions were started at the same time, arose out of the same accident, and involve the same issues except for damages, their consolidation was proper. In our opinion, however, it was an improper exercise of discretion to remove the Bronx County action to Westchester County in view of the trial delay of almost four years in Westchester County, compared to the two-year trial delay in Bronx County. This additional two-year delay would deprive plaintiff Bracken of a substantial right (Friedman v. Kleinman, 275 App. Div. 715; Miro v. Gottheim, 285 App. Div. 834; Spadaccini v. City of N. Y., 9 A.D.2d 502). The comparative condition of both calendars is to be given great weight in determining the appropriate county of the Supreme Court in which the consolidated action should be tried. (Gibbs v. Sokol, 216 App. Div. 260.) Disposition As so modified, order affirmed, with $10 costs and disbursements to plaintiffs payable by the defendant corporation.