Vidal v. Sheffield Farms Co.
| Decision Date | 17 May 1955 |
| Docket Number | No. 2,No. 1,1,2 |
| Citation | 141 N.Y.S.2d 82,208 Misc. 438 |
| Parties | Rafael E. VIDAL, as Administrator of the Goods, Chattels and Credits which were of Maria Vidal, Deceased, and Rafael E. Vidal, individually, Plaintiff, v. SHEFFIELD FARMS CO., Inc., Defendant. (Action). Melba PEREZ, Gerardo Perez and Carmen Perez, Plaintiffs, v. Raphael VIDAL, Sheffield Farms Co., Inc., and Fred Eichler, Defendants. (Action). |
| Court | New York Supreme Court |
Harry K. Ebenstein, New York City, for plaintiff Rafael E. Vidal.
Louis I. Rothenberg, New York City, for plaintiffs Melba Perez and others.
Thomas R. Gallagher, New York City, for defendants Sheffield Farms Co., Inc. and Fred Eichler.
Two actions are pending in this court. They arose as a result of a collision between two vehicles. Among other parties suing and sued, Rafael Vidal individually is a plaintiff in one and a defendant in the other. The actions were directed to be consolidated in pursuance of a motion in that behalf. In my memorandum granting the motion. I requested that the order to be entered be settled on notice. This has been done, and the parties have presented counterorders. They disagree upon certain provisions of the proposed order--such as in one the right to open and close is specifically mentioned and in the other no express direction is made. But they agree upon providing that the two causes are 'consolidated into one action', 'and that the said Action No. 1 shall be tried with and at the same time as said Action No. 2'. They agree too upon the style of the title of the consolidated action. They provide for a new single title, with Rafael Vidal named both as a plaintiff and as a defendant. Because these errors are very often made (and in the administrative processing of such orders apt to be overlooked), I have decided to write this memorandum to pin-point them, in the hope that when members of the profession submit such orders to me in the future they will be guided accordingly.
At the outset, the parties should determine whether they desire organic consolidation, Civil Practice Act, § 96, or only joint trials, Civil Practice Act, § 96-a. While, frequently, there is little practical difference whether certain cases be actually consolidated or merely tried together, Prashker, New York Practice, 3d Ed., pp. 501-502, at times it becomes quite inartistic and inconsistent--and possible objectionable as contrary to what the litigants asked for or agreed to--to ignord or to confuse the facets and features indigenous to each of these techniques. The matter is not merely one of nomenclature and symmetry. It may become one of mechanics and perhaps of substance.
The provision for simultaneous trials may be likened to monovular twins--conceived together ('growing out of the same set of facts'), separated after birth (by the institution of separate actions) and now living apart. The court has brought them together to live in the same household, but only for a while, for after the joint trial they will be separated once again, to go their individual ways. On the other hand, the provision for genuine 'consolidation' is more fundamental, somewhat like Siamese twins--legislatively begotten and judicially mid-wifed. In normal circumstances, they are expected to be continued that way without later operative procedures for the purposes of separation after the joinder had appeared to serve its own purpose. And, legally and physiologically, each type of progeny should be recognized for what it is.
In the instant case, the proposed orders indicate confusion between the two types of remedies. For example, the parties provide in some clauses for consolidation. They discard the old titles of the old actions and ask that there be a new title. This new title, as suggested by counsel, is:
'X and Vidal, Plaintiffs,
against
Vidal and Y, Defendants.'
But, can Vidal be both a plaintiff and a defendant in the same action? Can one sue...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Liebman v. Westchester County
...Since these are joint trials with separate judgments (Padilla v. Greyhound Lines, 29 A.D.2d 495, 288 N.Y.S.2d 641; Vidal v. Sheffield Farms Co., 208 Misc. 438, 141 N.Y.S.2d 82) the separate units of defendants in actions 3 and 5 12 do not have any right to statutory contribution (Greyhound ......
-
HSBC Bank USA, N.A. v. Francis
...all become codefendants together, with the possibility of amended pleadings asserting additional claims (see Vidal v. Sheffield Farms Co., 208 Misc. 438, 440, 141 N.Y.S.2d 82 [Sup. Ct., Bronx County] ). By contrast, the joinder of two or more actions under the same enabling statute, CPLR 60......
-
Sorin v. Shahmoon Industries, Inc.
...of that order makes it plain that the consolidation was clearly an organic one (Vidal v. Sheffield Farms Co., Inc., 208 Misc . 438, 141 N.Y.S.2d 82) as distinguished from a mere direction that the causes while remaining separate be tried together (cf. Sections 96 and 96-a of the Civil Pract......
-
Brian Wallach Agency, Inc. v. Bank of New York
...First Nat. City Bank, 40 A.D.2d 820, 338 N.Y.S.2d 233; Padilla v. Greyhound Lines, 29 A.D.2d 495, 288 N.Y.S. 641; Vidal v. Sheffield Farms Co., 208 Misc. 438, 141 N.Y.S.2d 82). Consequently, it is possible for a simultaneous trial to be held in which one action could be tried by the court w......