Hyperlawhypertext legal databasebeta J & A Vending, Inc. v. J.A.M. Vending, Inc. 268 A.D.2d 505

← Cases

J & A Vending, Inc. v. J.A.M. Vending, Inc.

268 A.D.2d 505 Court N.Y. App. Div. Decision date 2000-01-24 English

Contents

Majority

p. 505
J & A Vending, Inc., Appellant, v J.A.M. Vending, Inc., Respondent. (And a Third-Party Action.) (Action No. 1.) J & A Vending, Inc., et al., Plaintiffs, v Eagle & Fein et al., Defendants. (Action No. 2.) J.A.M. Vending, Inc., et al., Plaintiffs, v Milton Small et al., Defendants. (Action No. 3.) J.A.M. Vending, Inc., Plaintiff, v Jerry Dugger et al., Defendants. (And a Third-Party Action.) (Action No. 4.)
[703 NYS2d 53]

—In four related actions, inter alla, to recover damages for breach of contract and fraud, which were joined for trial, the plaintiff in Action No. 1, J & A Vending, Inc., appeals from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Nassau County (Burke, J.), dated December 16, 1998, as denied its motion, inter alla, for a separate trial in that action.

p. 506
Ordered that the order is affirmed insofar as appealed from, with costs.

The denial of the motion of J & A Vending, Inc., inter alla, for a separate trial in Action No. 1 was a proper exercise of discretion. A trial court has broad discretion in determining whether to order a joint trial of several actions (see, Megyesi v Automotive Rentals, 115 AD2d 596 ; Mideal Homes Corp. v L & C Concrete Work, 90 AD2d 789 ). The interests of justice and judicial economy are better served by a joint trial in those cases where, as here, the actions share material questions of law or fact (see, Megyesi v Automotive Rentals, supra, at 596 ; Import Alley v Mid-Island Shopping Plaza, 103 AD2d 797 ; Mideal Homes Corp. v L & C Concrete Work, supra, at 789 ). Ritter, J. P., Friedmann, Feuerstein and Schmidt, JJ., concur.

Cases cited