Drir v U-9 Rest. Assoc., Inc., 2019 NY Slip Op 00079 [1st Dept. 2019]

The motion court providently exercised its discretion in severing the third-party actions, based on the record before it, which reflected that discovery in the main action was complete and discovery in the second third-party action had barely commenced, and that plaintiff would be prejudiced by a delay in further discovery due to a 180-day stay of a liquidation and/or reorganization proceeding involving the insurer for the second third-party defendants (see Golden v Moscowitz, 194 AD2d 385 [1st Dept 1993]; Weber v Baccarat, Inc., 70 AD3d 487 [1st Dept 2010]). Defendants/second third-party plaintiffs retain their right of contribution, which they can exercise, if necessary, upon resolution of the liquidation/reorganization proceeding (see Kharmah v Metropolitan Chiropractic Ctr., 288 AD2d 94 [1st Dept 2001]; Moy v St. Vincent’s Hosp. & Med. Ctr. of N.Y., 92 AD3d 651 [2d Dept 2012]).

Leave a Reply

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

You are commenting using your 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

%d bloggers like this: