Case Name: George J. Seedman et al., Respondents, v. Bondy & Schloss, Appellant, and Kaplan & Kaplan, Respondent; Magdalena Titus, Respondent, v. Lewis M. Schwartz et al., Appellants and Third-Party Plaintiffs-Appellants. Kaplan & Kaplan, Third-Party Defendant-Respondent
Court: New York Supreme Court, Appellate Division
Jurisdiction: New York
Decision Date: 1994-02-03
Citations: 201 A.D.2d 287
Docket Number: 
Parties: George J. Seedman et al., Respondents, v Bondy & Schloss, Appellant, and Kaplan & Kaplan, Respondent. Magdalena Titus, Respondent, v Lewis M. Schwartz et al., Appellants and Third-Party Plaintiffs-Appellants. Kaplan & Kaplan, Third-Party Defendant-Respondent.
Judges: 
Reporter: Appellate Division Reports
Volume: 201
Pages: 287–287

Head Matter:
George J. Seedman et al., Respondents, v Bondy & Schloss, Appellant, and Kaplan & Kaplan, Respondent. Magdalena Titus, Respondent, v Lewis M. Schwartz et al., Appellants and Third-Party Plaintiffs-Appellants. Kaplan & Kaplan, Third-Party Defendant-Respondent.
[608 NYS2d 832]

Opinion:
Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Carol Arber, J.), entered July 12, 1993, which granted defendant-respondent's motion for consolidation, unanimously affirmed, without costs.
Upon comparing the allegations of the complaints in the two actions, we find that defendants' valuations and reporting of the leaseholds in question and the effect thereof on the tax liability of the plaintiffs in both actions is a central and common issue to both actions, and that defendants-appellants' opposition to consolidation does not demonstrate prejudice to a substantial right. Concur — Carro, J. P., Ellerin, Rubin, Nardelli and Tom, JJ.