Recitation in accordance with CPLR 2219 (a) of the papers considered on the notice of motion of plaintiff Miklos Kemeny (hereinafter Kemeny) filed on September 12, 2019, for an order pursuant to CPLR 602 (a) consolidating for trial the instant action with another related action. The motion is unopposed. Notice of Motion Affirmation in Support Exhibits A-F DECISION & ORDER BACKGROUND On September 28, 2017, Kemeny commenced an action, bearing Index Number 518593/17(hereinafter Action No. 1), to recover damages for personal injuries against defendant the City of New York (hereinafter the City) by filing a summons and verified complaint with the Kings County Clerk’s Office (hereinafter KCCO). The Action No. 1 verified complaint alleges the following salient facts. On July 7, 2016, Kemeny alleges that he was injured when he tripped and fell due to a dangerous condition in a pedestrian crosswalk located at the corner of 56th Street and 13th Avenue in Brooklyn, New York. Kemeny, further, alleges that the accident and his injuries were the result of the City’s negligence. On February 15, 2019, Kemeny commenced the instant action, bearing Index Number 503456/19 (hereinafter Action 2), to recover damages for personal injuries against defendant Restani Construction Corp. (hereinafter Restani) by filing a summons and verified complaint with KCCO. The Action 2 verified complaint similarly alleges that on July 7, 2016, Kemeny sustained injuries due to a dangerous condition in a pedestrian crosswalk located on the corner of 56th Street and 13th Avenue in Brooklyn, New York. Furthermore, the complaint alleges that Restani was engaged in construction in the area in and around the cross walk located on the corner of 56th Street and 13th Avenue, Brooklyn, New York. Kemeny alleges Restani was negligent in the maintenance and repair of the crosswalk area. MOTION PAPERS Kemeny’s motion papers consist of a notice of motion, an affirmation of counsel and six annexed exhibits labeled A through F. Exhibit A is a copy of the summons and verified complaint in Action 1 bearing Index Number 518593/17. Exhibit B is a copy of the City of New York’s answer. Exhibit C is a copy of a Preliminary Conference order dated September 24, 2018. Exhibit D is a copy of a Compliance Conference order dated May 7, 2019. Exhibit E is a copy of the summons and verified complaint in Action 2 bearing Index Number 503456/19. Exhibit F is a copy of Restani’s verified answer. LAW AND APPLICATION By the instant motion, Kemeny seeks an order pursuant to CPLR 602 (a) consolidating Action No. 1 and Action No. 2 into one proceeding. CPLR 602 provides as follows: Consolidation (a) Generally. When actions involving a common question of law or fact are pending before a court, the court, upon motion, may order a joint trial of any or all the matters in issue, may order the actions consolidated, and may make such other orders concerning proceedings therein as may tend to avoid unnecessary costs or delay. (b) Cases pending in different courts. Where an action is pending in the supreme court it may, upon motion, remove to itself an action pending in another court and consolidate it or have it tried together with that in the supreme court. Where an action is pending in the county court, it may, upon motion, remove to itself an action pending in a city, municipal, district or justice court in the county and consolidate it or have it tried together with that in the county court. Where common questions of law or fact exist, a motion to consolidate or for joint trial pursuant to CPLR 602 (a) should be granted absent a showing of prejudice to a substantial right by a party opposing the motion (Cromwell v CRP 482 Riverdale Ave., LLC, 163 AD3d 626, 627 [2nd Dept 2018]). The trial court has the sound discretion in determining whether to order consolidation (Lombardi v Lombardi, 164 AD3d 665, 668 [2d Dept 2018]). In exercising that discretion, the controlling principle is that interests of justice and judicial economy are better served by consolidation in those cases where the actions share material questions of law or fact (see Lombardi, 164 AD3d at 668 citing Cusumano v Cusumano, 114 AD3d 633, 633-634 [2nd Dept 2014]. Here, Action No. 1 and Action No. 2 were both commenced by Kemeny. The allegations in both actions state that Kemeny sustained injuries due to defect in a pedestrian crosswalk located at the corner of 56th Street and 13th Avenue in Brooklyn, New York. The City and Restani, the Action No. 1 and Action No. 2 defendants respectively, are both alleged to be negligent in the maintenance and repair of the crosswalk. Inasmuch as both actions arise from the same incident and share common issues of fact and law, consolidation would serve the interest of justice and judicial economy and avoid the potential inconsistent verdicts. Furthermore, the motion is unopposed, thus there is no indication of unfair prejudice to the defendants (see CPLR 602; Rhoe v Reid, 166 AD3d 919, 921 [2nd Dept 2018]). CONCLUSION The motion by plaintiff Miklos Kemeny for an order pursuant to CPLR 602 (a) to consolidate Action No. 2 bearing Index Number 503456/19 into Action No. 1 bearing Index Number 518593/2017 is granted. The forgoing constitutes the decision and order of this court. *Researched and drafted with the assistance of Maria Gomes, Senior at John Jay College of Criminal Justice
