Case Name: 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.)
Court: New York Supreme Court, Appellate Division
Jurisdiction: New York
Decision Date: 2000-01-24
Citations: 268 A.D.2d 505
Docket Number: 
Parties: 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.)
Judges: 
Reporter: Appellate Division Reports
Volume: 268
Pages: 505–506

Head Matter:
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]

Opinion:
—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.
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.