The following papers were read on this motion numbered via NYSCEF, to wit NYSCEF Doc. Nos. 114-130. This is a Decision and Order after Oral Argument on Motion Sequence #005.

Procedural History and Findings of Fact

This action arises from a motor vehicle accident that occurred on January 13, 2023, at the intersection of Queen Street and Graves Street, Richmond County, New York. Plaintiff John Eric Bongiovi alleges that while operating a vehicle registered to him, he was struck by a vehicle operated by defendant Hernan Pulla and affiliated with Uber Technologies, Inc., Uber USA, LLC, and Raiser-NY, LLC. Plaintiff asserts causes of action sounding in negligence and seeks damages for personal injuries pursuant to Insurance Law § 5102(d), alleging serious injury within the meaning of the statute.

Discovery in this matter has proceeded through depositions, disclosure of medical records, physical examinations, and exchange of relevant documentary evidence. The Note of Issue and Certificate of Readiness have been filed, and the case had been placed on the Court's trial calendar for February 27, 2025. That date is hereby VACATED because of the within motion practice.

By motion, defendant Hernan Pulla seeks to consolidate this action with a second, recently commenced personal injury action bearing Index No. 152263/2024, which arises from the same incident. Plaintiff opposes the motion, asserting that consolidation at this juncture would result in substantial prejudice, as discovery in the new action has not commenced, and joinder would significantly delay the trial of the instant, trial-ready matter.

Motions for consolidation are governed by CPLR § 602 [a], which authorizes consolidation or joint trial of actions "involving a common question of law or fact," in the interest of judicial economy. However, consolidation is not mandatory and remains subject to the Court's discretion, particularly where the procedural postures of the actions are materially distinct.

While it is beyond cavil that both actions arise from the same occurrence and would naturally involve overlapping factual questions—including liability, damages, and causation—the Court must weigh the efficiency gained through consolidation against the prejudice to the parties, particularly the party resisting consolidation.

The Appellate Divisions have uniformly held that "consolidation should be denied where it will prejudice a substantial right of a party" (see E.F. Hutton & Co., Inc. v. Tretiak, 140 AD2d 294 [2d Dept 1988]; F&K Supply, Inc. v. Johnson, 197 AD2d 814 [3d Dept 1993]). The Second Department has explicitly maintained that absent a showing of prejudice to a substantial right by a party opposing the motion (see Perini Corp. v. WDF, Inc., 33 AD3d 605; Beerman v. Morhaim, 17 AD3d 302, 303; Nationwide Assoc. v. Targee St. Internal Med. Group, P.C. Profit Sharing Trust, 286 AD2d 717, 730; Gadelov v. Shure, 274 AD2d 375). The instant Plaintiff's case is trial-ready and the other is in the pleading stage, (issue not having been joined as of the filing of this motion).

This Court finds those holdings and the facts herein dispositive. Here, Plaintiff has fully prosecuted his claims to the point of calendar readiness. To now tether the disposition of this action to an unripe proceeding—one in which discovery has not yet commenced, and where issue has not even been joined—would effectively reward procedural delay and impair the Plaintiff's right to a timely adjudication. Moreover, CPLR 602 is permissive, not compulsory. [*2]The statute's underlying purpose—promoting efficiency and conserving judicial resources—is not served when the cost of consolidation is the frustration of expeditious trial readiness.

Finally, Defendant's reliance on shared factual questions cannot override the inequity of resetting the procedural clock. The jurisprudence is clear: commonality of facts alone does not compel consolidation where the result is to prejudice one party by compelling further delay.

Based upon the foregoing, it is hereby:

ORDERED, that Defendant Hernan Pulla's motion to consolidate this action with the action pending under Index No. 152263/2024 is DENIED in its entirety; and it is further;

ORDERED, that the trial of this action shall proceed forthwith, and the matter is hereby sent, (by separate contemporaneous Order) to the Jury Selection Part (at a date and time specified therein).

This constitutes the Decision and Order of the Court. The Clerk shall enter judgment accordingly.