WILLIAMS v. PROPERTY SERVS

It is preferable to try related actions together, in order to avoid a waste of judicial resources and the risk of inconsistent verdicts ( Rothstein v. Milleridge Inn, 251 A.D.2d 154). These incidents arose from a common nucleus of facts ( Sichel v. Community Synagogue, 256 A.D.2d 276), and will require almost the same list of witnesses ( Andresakis v. Lynn, 236 A.D.2d 252). Defendants have failed to demonstrate prejudice to a substantial right in the absence of severance of these claims ( id.; CPLR 603). This was a proper exercise of the trial court's discretion.

THIS CONSTITUTES THE DECISION AND ORDER OF THE SUPREME COURT, APPELLATE DIVISION, FIRST DEPARTMENT.