Case Name: Horace Shackleford et al., Appellants, v. George Mills et al., Respondents. (Action No. 1.); Horace Shackleford et al., Appellants, v. Charles Brooks, Respondent. (Action No. 2.); Horace Shackleford et al., Appellants, v. Timothy B. Debiak et al., Respondents. (Action No. 3.)
Court: New York Supreme Court, Appellate Division
Jurisdiction: New York
Decision Date: 1985-04-01
Citations: 110 A.D.2d 630
Docket Number: 
Parties: Horace Shackleford et al., Appellants, v George Mills et al., Respondents. (Action No. 1.) Horace Shackleford et al., Appellants, v Charles Brooks, Respondent. (Action No. 2.) Horace Shackleford et al., Appellants, v Timothy B. Debiak et al., Respondents. (Action No. 3.)
Judges: 
Reporter: Appellate Division Reports
Volume: 110
Pages: 630–630

Head Matter:
Horace Shackleford et al., Appellants, v George Mills et al., Respondents. (Action No. 1.) Horace Shackleford et al., Appellants, v Charles Brooks, Respondent. (Action No. 2.) Horace Shackleford et al., Appellants, v Timothy B. Debiak et al., Respondents. (Action No. 3.)

Opinion:
Special Term properly exercised its discretion in denying plaintiffs' motion for a joint trial. Involved are separate, unrelated accidents and separate trials will enable the juries to focus on the factual issues presented as to each accident (CPLR 602; Abbatepaolo v Blumberg, 7 AD2d 847; Pride v Perras, 6 AD2d 842; cf. Doll v Castiglione, 86 AD2d 711). Mollen, P. J., Titone, Lazer and Rubin, JJ., concur.