RAHMAN v. MILLER

Ordered that the order is affirmed insofar as appealed from, without costs or disbursements.

The Supreme Court providently exercised its discretion in directing a joint trial since there exists a common question of fact regarding the relative fault of the parties in Action No. 3 in their failure to procure a policy to provide coverage for the benefit of the plaintiffs in Action Nos. 1, 2, and 4 through 7 which would have protected those plaintiffs against the actual cost of replacing the condominium in the event of a fire. In the interest of justice and judicial economy, a single trial would be more appropriate ( see, Farrel v. Lautob Realty Corp., 204 A.D.2d 597; Heck v. Waldbaum's Supermarkets, 134 A.D.2d 568; Megyesi v. Automotive Rentals, 115 A.D.2d 596). Moreover, Clair Odell Group Insurance has failed to demonstrate prejudice to a substantial right as a result of a joint trial ( see, CPLR 602; Ryckman v. Schlessinger-Levi-Polatsch-Tydings, 225 A.D.2d 603; North Side Sav. Bank v. Nyack Waterfront Assocs., 203 A.D.2d 439; Donaldson v. Jamaica Buses, 172 A.D.2d 800; Heck v. Waldbaum's Supermarkets, supra).

Miller, J.P., Thompson, McGinity and Luciano, JJ., concur.