Ordered that the order is reversed, with costs, the motion is granted, and the actions are consolidated under Nassau County Index No. 3762/96; and it is further,
Ordered that the matter is remitted to the Supreme Court, Nassau County, for the making of an order in its discretion setting a schedule for the expeditious completion of all discovery in the consolidated action.
The appellant moved to consolidate three actions which arose out of the same multi-vehicle collision. The Supreme Court, Nassau County, denied the motion because discovery in the Actions No. 2 and 3 had not yet been completed, while a note of issue had already been filed in the Action No. 1.
"Although a motion pursuant to CPLR 602 (a) to consolidate * * * pending actions is addressed to the sound discretion of the trial court * * * consolidation is favored by the courts as serving the interests of justice and judicial economy * * * The motion to consolidate should be granted unless the opposing party succeeds in demonstrating prejudice to a substantial right" ( Zupich v. Flushing Hosp. Med. Ctr., 156 A.D.2d 677; see, Ryckman v. Schlessinger-Levi-Polatsch-Tydings, 225 A.D.2d 603). The potential delay in the trial of Action No. 1 pending completion of discovery in the two related actions will not cause prejudice sufficient to justify denial of the appellant's consolidation motion ( see, Moretti v. 860 W. Tower, 221 A.D.2d 191; Raboy v. McCrory Corp., 210 A.D.2d 145). The Supreme Court can take adequate steps to insure that discovery in the two related actions is expeditiously completed ( see, Zupich v. Flushing Hosp. Med. Ctr., supra; Ryckman v. Schlessinger-Levi-Polatsch-Tydings, supra).
Bracken, J. P., Copertino, Santucci and Altman, JJ., concur.