Judicial economy

CPLR § 602 Consolidation

43rd St. Deli v Paramount Leasehold, L.P., 2011 NY Slip Op 08296 (1st Dept., 2011)

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Emily Jane Goodman, J.), entered April 5, 2011, which, insofar as appealed from, in this action seeking, inter alia, a declaration that plaintiff tenant is not in default of the parties' lease and that plaintiff properly exercised its option to renew the lease, denied plaintiff's motion to remove a pending holdover proceeding in the Housing Part of Civil Court and to consolidate it with this action, unanimously reversed, on the law, without costs, and the motion granted.

The motion should have been granted in the interests of judicial economy (see e.g. Amcan Holdings, Inc. v Torys LLP, 32 AD3d 337, 339 [2006]; Moretti v 860 W. Tower, Inc., 221 AD2d 191 [1995]). The record shows that the Supreme Court action and the Civil Court proceeding involve the same parties, and essentially the same questions of law and fact. Defendant has failed to demonstrate that any of its substantial rights would be prejudiced (see Fisher 40th & 3rd Co. v Welsbach Elec. Corp., 266 AD2d 169, 170 [1999]; Amtorg Trading Corp. v Broadway & 56th St. Assoc., 191 AD2d 212, 213 [1993]), and the Civil Court cannot accord the complete relief sought by plaintiff in the Supreme Court action (see DeCastro v Bhokari, 201 AD2d 382, 382-83 [1994]).

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s