Preview
FILED: KINGS COUNTY CLERK 02/12/2020 04:47 PM INDEX NO. 521723/2018
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 63 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 02/12/2020
SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK
COUNTY OF KINGS
---------------------------------------------------------------------X
ABRHAHAM VARGAS MEDELLIN and JOSE Index No.: 521723/2018
ALFONSO DELGADO PRIEGO,
Plaintiffs,
AFFIRMATION IN
SUPPORT
-against-
HAPPY TRANSPORTATION SERVICE, LLC and
RAISER - NY LLC,
Defendants.
------------------------------------------------------------------------X
DAVID J. PRETTER, ESQ., an attorney duly admitted to practice law before the
Courts of the State of New York, hereby affirms the following to be true under the penalty
of perjury pursuant to CPLR §2106:
1. I am associated with the law firm of JAROSLAWICZ & JAROS, PLLC,
attorneys for the plaintiffs, ABRAHAM VARGAS MEDELLIN and JOSE ALFONSO
DELGADO PRIEGO (hereinafter "plaintiffs") in the above captioned mater, and as such I
am thoroughly familiar with the facts and circumstances herein based upon the contents of
the file maintained by this office.
2. This Affirmation is submitted in support of the instant motion for an
being
Order pursuant to CPLR §602, consolidating the matter captioned: Abraham Vargas Medellin
and Jose Alfonso Delgado Priego v. Jack Godson 11th ST. Inc. and Adam
Bernard, Workshop, Longoria,
Index No.: 526425/2019, currently pending in Kings County Supreme Court ("Action 2")
into the matter Abraham Vargas Medellin and Jose Alfonso Delgado Priego v. Transportation
Eappy
Service, LLC and Raiser-NY, LLC, Index No.: 521723/2018, pending in Kings County
1 of 5
FILED: KINGS COUNTY CLERK 02/12/2020 04:47 PM INDEX NO. 521723/2018
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 63 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 02/12/2020
Supreme Court ("Action 1") under Index No.: 521723/2018; the caption to reflect
amending
consolidation; and plaintiff such other and further relief as is just and proper.
awarding
3. The within motion is made on the grounds that Action 1 and Action 2 are
interrelated, involve the same parties, arise out of the same, continuous transactions or
occurrence, involve the same questions of law and because consolidation would promote
judicial economy.
FACTUAL BACKGROUND AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY
4. Action 1 and Action 2 stem from a motor vehicle accident that occurred on
September 17, 2018.
defendants'
5. In summary, on September 17, 2018, plaintiffs were passengers in
HAPPY TRANSPORTATION SERVICE, LLC, RAISER-NY, LLC and JACK GODSON
BERNARD's vehicle and were involved in a motor vehicle accident with co-defendants
11'ru ST WORKSHOP INC. and ADAM LONGORIA. As a result of which plaintiff
sustained serious and permanent personal injuries.
6. On October 25, 2018, Action 1 was commenced against defendants Happy
Transportation Service, LLC and Raiser-NY, LLC by the filing of a Summons and Complaint. A
copy of the Summons and Complaint is annexed hereto as Exhibit "A".
7. Issue was joined by all defendants on November 28, 2018 and December 5,
2018. Copies of the Answers are annexed hereto as Exhibit "B".
8. the course of discovery in Action 1, plaintiffs learned that other parties
During
were involved in the motor vehicle accident where plaintiffs were injured.
2 of 5
FILED: KINGS COUNTY CLERK 02/12/2020 04:47 PM INDEX NO. 521723/2018
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 63 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 02/12/2020
9. Action 2 arises out of the same accident and contains allegations identical to
those in Action 1.
10. On December 5, 2019 Action 2 was commenced
by the filing of a Summons
and Complaint. A copy of the Summons and Complaint in Action 2 is annexed hereto as
Exhibit "C". Issue was joined by the defendants in Action 2 on 2, 2020, 7,
January February
2020 and February 10, 2020. Copies of these Answers are annexed hereto as Exhibit "D".
ARGUMENT
11. Action 2 should be consolidated into Action 1 because they are interrelated,
involve the same parties, arise out of the same, continuous transactions or occurrences,
involve the same questions of law, and because consolidation would promote judicial
economy.
12. CPLR §602(a) states, in pertinent part:
[w]hen actions involving a common question of law of fact are pending
before the court, the court, upon motion, order a joint trial of any,
may
or allof the matters at issue, may order the actions consolidated, and
make such other orders proceedings therein as
may concerning may
tend to avoid unnecessary costs and delays.
13. The intent of the legislature in enacting CPLR §602 was to prevent
trials, shorten litigation, and dispose of all related controversies in one trial.
unnecessary
Sommer v. Kenin, N.Y.S.2d 763 (1946). Furthermore, it is well-established that
consolidation is favored the courts. Calin v. Zarell, 34 Misc.2d 12, 225 N.Y.S.2d 342
by
(1962). Indeed, a consolidation of action is not only a "time, trouble and expense saving
device"
but a preventative of the injustice which may result from divergent decisions in
separate cases. v. Grossman, 273 A.D. 544, 78 N.Y.S.2d 127 (1948). For these
Shlansky
3 of 5
FILED: KINGS COUNTY CLERK 02/12/2020 04:47 PM INDEX NO. 521723/2018
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 63 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 02/12/2020
reasons, our courts have found consolidation to be appropriate in the interest of
routinely
judicial and in order to avoid inconsistent verdicts, in the absence of demonstrated
economy
prejudice. Boyman v. Bryant, 133 A.D.2d 802, 520 N.Y.S2d 183 (1987).
14. Since common questions of law and fact exist in these matters, great time and
expense will be saved for the parties, as well as the Court, if Action 2 is consolidated into
Action 1.
15. As set forth above, both actions stem from a motor vehicle accident on
September 17, 2018.
16. Therefore, it is submitted that Action 2 be consolidated into
respectfully
Action 1 for all purposes pursuant to CPLR §602.
17. It is further submitted that the caption of the consolidated action be amended
as follows:
SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK
COUNTY OF KINGS
------------------------------------------------------------------------X
ABRAHAM VARGAS MEDELLIN and JOSE Index No.: 521723/18
ALFONSO DELGADO PRIEGO,
Plaintiffs,
-against-
HAPPY TRANSPORTATION SERVICE, LLC,
RAISER-NY LLC, JACK GODSON BERNARD,
11m ST WORKSHOP INC. and ADAM LONGORIA,
Defendants.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------X
4 of 5
FILED: KINGS COUNTY CLERK 02/12/2020 04:47 PM INDEX NO. 521723/2018
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 63 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 02/12/2020
WHEREFORE, it is respectfully requested that an Order be issued pursuant to
CPLR §602 consolidating
Action 2 into Action 1 under the Index Number 521723/2018;
the caption to reflect such consolidation; and plaintiff such other and
amending awarding
relief as is just and proper.
Dated: New York, New York
February 12, 2020
David J. Pre r, Esq.
5 of 5
Preview
FILED: KINGS COUNTY CLERK 02/12/2020 04:47 PM INDEX NO. 521723/2018 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 63 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 02/12/2020 SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK COUNTY OF KINGS ---------------------------------------------------------------------X ABRHAHAM VARGAS MEDELLIN and JOSE Index No.: 521723/2018 ALFONSO DELGADO PRIEGO, Plaintiffs, AFFIRMATION IN SUPPORT -against- HAPPY TRANSPORTATION SERVICE, LLC and RAISER - NY LLC, Defendants. ------------------------------------------------------------------------X DAVID J. PRETTER, ESQ., an attorney duly admitted to practice law before the Courts of the State of New York, hereby affirms the following to be true under the penalty of perjury pursuant to CPLR §2106: 1. I am associated with the law firm of JAROSLAWICZ & JAROS, PLLC, attorneys for the plaintiffs, ABRAHAM VARGAS MEDELLIN and JOSE ALFONSO DELGADO PRIEGO (hereinafter "plaintiffs") in the above captioned mater, and as such I am thoroughly familiar with the facts and circumstances herein based upon the contents of the file maintained by this office. 2. This Affirmation is submitted in support of the instant motion for an being Order pursuant to CPLR §602, consolidating the matter captioned: Abraham Vargas Medellin and Jose Alfonso Delgado Priego v. Jack Godson 11th ST. Inc. and Adam Bernard, Workshop, Longoria, Index No.: 526425/2019, currently pending in Kings County Supreme Court ("Action 2") into the matter Abraham Vargas Medellin and Jose Alfonso Delgado Priego v. Transportation Eappy Service, LLC and Raiser-NY, LLC, Index No.: 521723/2018, pending in Kings County 1 of 5 FILED: KINGS COUNTY CLERK 02/12/2020 04:47 PM INDEX NO. 521723/2018 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 63 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 02/12/2020 Supreme Court ("Action 1") under Index No.: 521723/2018; the caption to reflect amending consolidation; and plaintiff such other and further relief as is just and proper. awarding 3. The within motion is made on the grounds that Action 1 and Action 2 are interrelated, involve the same parties, arise out of the same, continuous transactions or occurrence, involve the same questions of law and because consolidation would promote judicial economy. FACTUAL BACKGROUND AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY 4. Action 1 and Action 2 stem from a motor vehicle accident that occurred on September 17, 2018. defendants' 5. In summary, on September 17, 2018, plaintiffs were passengers in HAPPY TRANSPORTATION SERVICE, LLC, RAISER-NY, LLC and JACK GODSON BERNARD's vehicle and were involved in a motor vehicle accident with co-defendants 11'ru ST WORKSHOP INC. and ADAM LONGORIA. As a result of which plaintiff sustained serious and permanent personal injuries. 6. On October 25, 2018, Action 1 was commenced against defendants Happy Transportation Service, LLC and Raiser-NY, LLC by the filing of a Summons and Complaint. A copy of the Summons and Complaint is annexed hereto as Exhibit "A". 7. Issue was joined by all defendants on November 28, 2018 and December 5, 2018. Copies of the Answers are annexed hereto as Exhibit "B". 8. the course of discovery in Action 1, plaintiffs learned that other parties During were involved in the motor vehicle accident where plaintiffs were injured. 2 of 5 FILED: KINGS COUNTY CLERK 02/12/2020 04:47 PM INDEX NO. 521723/2018 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 63 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 02/12/2020 9. Action 2 arises out of the same accident and contains allegations identical to those in Action 1. 10. On December 5, 2019 Action 2 was commenced by the filing of a Summons and Complaint. A copy of the Summons and Complaint in Action 2 is annexed hereto as Exhibit "C". Issue was joined by the defendants in Action 2 on 2, 2020, 7, January February 2020 and February 10, 2020. Copies of these Answers are annexed hereto as Exhibit "D". ARGUMENT 11. Action 2 should be consolidated into Action 1 because they are interrelated, involve the same parties, arise out of the same, continuous transactions or occurrences, involve the same questions of law, and because consolidation would promote judicial economy. 12. CPLR §602(a) states, in pertinent part: [w]hen actions involving a common question of law of fact are pending before the court, the court, upon motion, order a joint trial of any, may or allof the matters at issue, may order the actions consolidated, and make such other orders proceedings therein as may concerning may tend to avoid unnecessary costs and delays. 13. The intent of the legislature in enacting CPLR §602 was to prevent trials, shorten litigation, and dispose of all related controversies in one trial. unnecessary Sommer v. Kenin, N.Y.S.2d 763 (1946). Furthermore, it is well-established that consolidation is favored the courts. Calin v. Zarell, 34 Misc.2d 12, 225 N.Y.S.2d 342 by (1962). Indeed, a consolidation of action is not only a "time, trouble and expense saving device" but a preventative of the injustice which may result from divergent decisions in separate cases. v. Grossman, 273 A.D. 544, 78 N.Y.S.2d 127 (1948). For these Shlansky 3 of 5 FILED: KINGS COUNTY CLERK 02/12/2020 04:47 PM INDEX NO. 521723/2018 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 63 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 02/12/2020 reasons, our courts have found consolidation to be appropriate in the interest of routinely judicial and in order to avoid inconsistent verdicts, in the absence of demonstrated economy prejudice. Boyman v. Bryant, 133 A.D.2d 802, 520 N.Y.S2d 183 (1987). 14. Since common questions of law and fact exist in these matters, great time and expense will be saved for the parties, as well as the Court, if Action 2 is consolidated into Action 1. 15. As set forth above, both actions stem from a motor vehicle accident on September 17, 2018. 16. Therefore, it is submitted that Action 2 be consolidated into respectfully Action 1 for all purposes pursuant to CPLR §602. 17. It is further submitted that the caption of the consolidated action be amended as follows: SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK COUNTY OF KINGS ------------------------------------------------------------------------X ABRAHAM VARGAS MEDELLIN and JOSE Index No.: 521723/18 ALFONSO DELGADO PRIEGO, Plaintiffs, -against- HAPPY TRANSPORTATION SERVICE, LLC, RAISER-NY LLC, JACK GODSON BERNARD, 11m ST WORKSHOP INC. and ADAM LONGORIA, Defendants. --------------------------------------------------------------------------X 4 of 5 FILED: KINGS COUNTY CLERK 02/12/2020 04:47 PM INDEX NO. 521723/2018 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 63 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 02/12/2020 WHEREFORE, it is respectfully requested that an Order be issued pursuant to CPLR §602 consolidating Action 2 into Action 1 under the Index Number 521723/2018; the caption to reflect such consolidation; and plaintiff such other and amending awarding relief as is just and proper. Dated: New York, New York February 12, 2020 David J. Pre r, Esq. 5 of 5