Case Name: Elaine Tarshish, Appellant, v. Associated Dry Goods Corporation, Doing Business as Lord & Taylor, et al., Respondents. (Action No. 1.); Elaine Tarshish, Appellant, v. Port Authority of New York and New Jersey et al., Respondents. (Action No. 2.)
Court: New York Supreme Court, Appellate Division
Jurisdiction: New York
Decision Date: 1996-10-15
Citations: 232 A.D.2d 246
Docket Number: 
Parties: Elaine Tarshish, Appellant, v Associated Dry Goods Corporation, Doing Business as Lord & Taylor, et al., Respondents. (Action No. 1.) Elaine Tarshish, Appellant, v Port Authority of New York and New Jersey et al., Respondents. (Action No. 2.)
Judges: 
Reporter: Appellate Division Reports
Volume: 232
Pages: 246–247

Head Matter:
Elaine Tarshish, Appellant, v Associated Dry Goods Corporation, Doing Business as Lord & Taylor, et al., Respondents. (Action No. 1.) Elaine Tarshish, Appellant, v Port Authority of New York and New Jersey et al., Respondents. (Action No. 2.)
[648 NYS2d 298]

Opinion:
—Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Beverly Cohen, J.), entered March 31, 1995, which, inter alia, denied plaintiff's application for consolidation of the two actions, unanimously affirmed, without costs.
The motion court properly exercised its discretion in deny ing consolidation of the actions. Consolidation would he highly prejudicial to the common defendant, Ogden-Allied Maintenance Corp. since "[presentation of both claims to the same jury would tend to bolster each claim, to defendants' disadvantage" (Bradford v Coleman Catholic High School, 110 AD2d 965, 966). We also note that the two actions are at very different stages of the litigation process (see, Dias v Berman, 188 AD2d 331). We find plaintiff's remaining contentions to be without merit. Concur—Milonas, J. P., Wallaeh, Nardelli, Tom and Mazzarelli, JJ.