Although the causes of action against defendants-appellants on the one hand, and the remaining defendants on the other, allege separate instances of malpractice that resulted in unrelated physical injuries, it was a proper exercise of discretion to deny a severance where appellants' malpractice allegedly resulted in cumulative psychological and emotional injury (see, Shanley v Callanan Indus., 54 N.Y.2d 52, 57).
Although the two groups of alleged tortfeasors acted neither in concert nor concurrently, they may nevertheless be considered jointly and severally liable with respect to the psychological and emotional injuries, if such injuries, because of their nature, are incapable of any reasonable or practicable division or allocation among multiple tortfeasors (Ravo v. Rogatnick, 70 N.Y.2d 305, 310). "One jury hearing all the evidence can better determine the extent to which each defendant caused plaintiff's injuries and should eliminate the possibility of inconsistent verdicts which might result from separate trials." (Thayer v Collett, 41 A.D.2d 581; accord, Dolce v. Jones, 145 A.D.2d 594, 595.) We have considered defendants' other claims and find them to be meritless.
Concur — Rosenberger, J.P., Ellerin, Wallach, Kupferman and Mazzarelli, JJ.