Case Name: Arlene Brooks et al., Respondents, v. Henry A. Wahn, Jr., Appellant, and David M. Baker et al., Respondents. (Action No. 1.); Joseph M. Fitzpatrick et al., Respondents, v. Henry A. Wahn, Jr., Appellant, and David M. Baker et al., Respondents. (Action No. 2.); Henry A. Wahn, Jr., Respondent, v. David M. Baker et al., Respondents. (Action No. 3.)
Court: New York Supreme Court, Appellate Division
Jurisdiction: New York
Decision Date: 1963-04-22
Citations: 18 A.D.2d 1096
Docket Number: 
Parties: Arlene Brooks et al., Respondents, v. Henry A. Wahn, Jr., Appellant, and David M. Baker et al., Respondents. (Action No. 1.) Joseph M. Fitzpatrick et al., Respondents, v. Henry A. Wahn, Jr., Appellant, and David M. Baker et al., Respondents. (Action No. 2.) Henry A. Wahn, Jr., Respondent, v. David M. Baker et al., Respondents. (Action No. 3.)
Judges: 
Reporter: Appellate Division Reports
Volume: 18
Pages: 1096–1096

Head Matter:
(April 22, 1963)
Arlene Brooks et al., Respondents, v. Henry A. Wahn, Jr., Appellant, and David M. Baker et al., Respondents. (Action No. 1.) Joseph M. Fitzpatrick et al., Respondents, v. Henry A. Wahn, Jr., Appellant, and David M. Baker et al., Respondents. (Action No. 2.) Henry A. Wahn, Jr., Respondent, v. David M. Baker et al., Respondents. (Action No. 3.)

Opinion:
three separate negligence actions, Henry A. Wahn, Jr., one of the defendants in Actions Nos. 1 and 2, appeals: (1) from an order of the Supreme Court, Westchester County, made November 26, 1962 after a pretrial hearing in Action No. 1, which granted a preference in trial in all three actions; and (2) from an order of the same court, dated January 29, 1963, consolidating the three actions and according them a preference in trial under the same calendar number. Order of November 26, 1962, reversed, without costs, and preference vacated, without prejudice to a further application for a preference, if plaintiffs be so advised (Abramson v. Kenwood Labs., 17 A D 2d 626). Order of January 29, 1963, modified by deleting so much of its third decretal paragraph as grants a preference in trial to the consolidated actions. As so modified, order affirmed, without costs. Beldock, P. J., Ughetta, Christ, Hill and Rabin, JJ., concur.