Case Name: Francis V. Hurley, Respondent, v. Jack Rose, Otherwise Known as J. J. Rose, Appellant, Impleaded with Others, Individually and as Copartners, Trading as Rotisseri Gardens, Defendants. (Action No. 1.); Francis V. Hurley, Respondent, v. Jack Rose, Otherwise Known as J. J. Rose, Appellant, Impleaded with Others, Individually and as Copartners, Trading as Rotisseri Gardens, Defendants. (Action No. 2.)
Court: New York Supreme Court, Appellate Division
Jurisdiction: New York
Decision Date: 1932-10-28
Citations: 236 A.D. 517
Docket Number: 
Parties: Francis V. Hurley, Respondent, v. Jack Rose, Otherwise Known as J. J. Rose, Appellant, Impleaded with Others, Individually and as Copartners, Trading as Rotisseri Gardens, Defendants. (Action No. 1.) Francis V. Hurley, Respondent, v. Jack Rose, Otherwise Known as J. J. Rose, Appellant, Impleaded with Others, Individually and as Copartners, Trading as Rotisseri Gardens, Defendants. (Action No. 2.)
Judges: 
Reporter: Appellate Division Reports
Volume: 236
Pages: 517–519

Head Matter:
Francis V. Hurley, Respondent, v. Jack Rose, Otherwise Known as J. J. Rose, Appellant, Impleaded with Others, Individually and as Copartners, Trading as Rotisseri Gardens, Defendants. (Action No. 1.) Francis V. Hurley, Respondent, v. Jack Rose, Otherwise Known as J. J. Rose, Appellant, Impleaded with Others, Individually and as Copartners, Trading as Rotisseri Gardens, Defendants. (Action No. 2.)
First Department,
October 28, 1932.
Jerome A. Strauss of counsel [Louis L. Quasha, attorney], for the appellant.
Thomas R. Hart, Jr., of counsel [Charles J. McDermott with him on the brief; McDermott & Turner, attorneys], for the respondent.

Opinion:
Townley, J.
In these actions the parties are the same. The plaintiff, however, is suing as an assignee. His two separate claims are derived from different parties and do not grow out of the same transaction. In one action plaintiff is the assignee of the Van Ness Lumber Company and sues to recover for building supplies and money loaned the defendants. The action was commenced in December, 1931, and the cause was noticed for trial for the February, 1932, term. In the second action, which was commenced in February, 1932, plaintiff is suing as assignee of one Grassi for work, labor and services furnished the defendants. This action was noticed for the April term.
It is perfectly clear that if these actions were brought in the names of the assignors, the original owners of the claims, by no process of reasoning could the actions have been consolidated. There are no common facts to litigate. If the existence of the partnership as urged in the dissent were a sufficient " common fact," any number of different claims might be combined in one action on the theory that one defendant disclaimed partnership liability.
The order should be reversed, with ten dollars costs and disbursements, and the motion denied, with ten dollars costs.
McAvoy and O'Malley, JJ., concur; Finch, P. J., and Martin, J., dissent and vote for affirmance.