Pride v. Perras
| Decision Date | 30 June 1958 |
| Docket Number | No. 1,No. 2,1,2 |
| Citation | 176 N.Y.S.2d 573,6 A.D.2d 842 |
| Parties | Clifford H. PRIDE and Elizabeth S. Pride, Respondents, v. Albert J. PERRAS, Appellant. (Action) Clifford H. PRIDE and Elizabeth S. Pride, Respondents, v. William A. BLANK and William Carl Blank, Appellants. (Action) |
| Court | New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division |
John J. Mulvey, Poughkeepsie, for appellant A. J. Perras.
Roy L. Featherstone, Milton, for appellant Blank. Raymond E. Aldrich, Jr., Poughkeepsie, for respondents Pride.
Before NOLAN, P. J., and BELDOCK, MURPHY, UGHETTA and HALLINAN, JJ.
MEMORANDUM BY THE COURT.
On October 17, 1954 plaintiffs, husband and wife, were injured when an automobile operated by defendant Perras (Action No. 1) struck the rear of their automobile while they had stopped for a red light on Route 9 at Boght Road in the town of Colonie, New York. Plaintiffs brought suit in January, 1955. That action was noticed for trial for April 4, 1955. On December 18, 1954 plaintiffs were again injured when an automobile owned by defendant William A. Blank, and operated by defendant William Carl Blank (Action No. 2), struck the rear of their automobile while they had stopped on Route 9 at Cottam Hill Road, in the town of Poughkeepsie, preparatory to making a left turn into Cottam Hill Road. Suit was commenced in January, 1955, and this action was also noticed for trial for April 4, 1955. Thereafter, by leave of the court, the complaint in the first action was amended so as to include an allegation that the injuries sustained in the first accident were aggravated as a result of the second accident. After joinder of issue plaintiffs moved to consolidate the actions or, in the alternative, to have them tried together. The motion to consolidate was granted and the defendants in each action appeal from the order entered thereon.
Order reversed, with $10 costs and disbursements, and motion denied.
The injuries sustained did not arise from the same accident, but from two unrelated accidents as a result of unrelated acts of negligence and at different times. The convenience of one trial does not overcome the prejudice that may result to appellants, and the confusion which the jury will encounter in trying to determine the extent of the injuries attributable to each, and the compensation therefor. Gamble v. Fraleigh, 1 Misc.2d 347, 146 N.Y.S.2d 146; Nissenblatt v. Doyle, 6 Misc.2d 205, 163 N.Y.S.2d 271.
NOLAN, P. J.,...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Daliendo v. Johnson
...connection was offered by the plaintiff (see, Enslein v. Hudson & Manhattan R.R. Co., supra; see also, Pride v. Perras, 6 A.D.2d 842, 176 N.Y.S.2d 573 [Nolan, P.J., concurring]; Burker, Successive Tort-feasors, NYLJ, Dec. 27, 1988, at 3, col 1; cf., Korn v. Duhl, 22 A.D.2d 793, 253 N.Y.S.2d......
-
Denzel v. Cook County
...Misc. 188, 234 N.E.2d 326 (8 months); Contra, Georges v. Duncan (1972), 16 Md.App. 256, 295 A.2d 809 (4 months); Pride v. Perras and Blank (1958), 6 A.D.2d 842, 176 N.Y.S.2d 573 (2 months), cited in Schwartz, 63 Ill.App.2d 148, 156, 211 N.E.2d 122; Gamble v. Fraleigh (1955), 1 Misc.2d 347, ......
-
Shacter v. Richter
...are Gamble v. Fraleigh, 1 Misc.2d 347, 146 N.Y.S.2d 146; Abbatepaolo v. Blumberg, 7 A.D.2d 847, 182 N.Y.S.2d 83; and Pride v. Perras, 6 A.D.2d 842, 176 N.Y.S.2d 573. In the latter case, the court said (6 A.D.2d 842, 176 N.Y.S.2d 574): '* * * The injuries sustained did not arise from the sam......
-
Carr v. Higdon
...its joinder rules so as not to permit joinder when separate accidents injure the same plaintiff. Pride v. Perras, 6 A.2d 842, 176 N.Y.S.2d 573 (1958) and Gamble v. Fraleigh, 1 Misc.2d 347, 146 N.Y.S.2d 146 Although generalizations as to the question are difficult, the cases considering the ......