Remache v 347 W. 16th St. LLC

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

Remache v 347 W. 16th St. LLC 2012 NY Slip Op 31658(U) June 15, 2012 Supreme Court, New York County Docket Number: 111946/2010 Judge: Louis B. York Republished from New York State Unified Court System's E-Courts Service. Search E-Courts (http://www.nycourts.gov/ecourts) for any additional information on this case. This opinion is uncorrected and not selected for official publication. [* 1] SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK NEW YORK COUNTY PRESENT: PART J.8.C. ---- & # Justlcs * - Index Number : 111946/2010 REMACHE, GUlDO vs. 347 WEST 16 SEQUENCE NUMBER : 002 INDEX NO. MOTION DATE MOTION SEQ. NO. CONSOLIDATION/JOINT TRIAL The following papers, numbered I to Notice of MotlonlOrdsr to Show Caurs Anrwbdng Affldavlts - Exhlblta ,were read on this motlon toHor -Amdavltu - ExhlblG INo(r). INo(r). INab). Replying Affldavlb Upon the foregolng paper$, It Is ordered that thlr rnotlon I s JUN 21 2012 Dated: c-I 15 NEW YORK COUNTY CLERKS OFFICE *3. I& ..................................................................... 2. CHECK AS APPROPRIATE: ........................... MOTION IS: I . CHECK ONE: 3. CHECK IF APPROPRIATE: ................................................ J.S.C. fl NON-FINAL d S % O N CASE DISPOSED GRANTED $DENIED 0SEllLE ORDER DO NOT POST GRANTED IN PART 0OTHER 0SUBMIT ORDER 0FIDUCIARY APPOINTMENT 17REFERENCE [* 2] SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK COUNTY OF NEW YORK: IAS PART 2 GUIDO REMACHE, Plaintiff, Index No. 11 1946/2010 -against347 WEST 16 STREET LLC, BENEDICT PROPERTIES LLC and LOYAL STARS CONSTRUCTION INC., Defendant . JUN 21 2012 NEW YORK OCINn CLERK S 0 LOUIS B. YORK, J.: ~ Currently, defendants 347 West, LLC s/h/a 347 West Street, LLC (movmts) move to consolidate this case (Remache I) with Guido Remsche v. BRG Management LLC, Index No. 1137 13/2011 (Rernache 11). The Court denies tkrs motion for numerous reasons, which it sets forth below. Movants are correct that where common questions of law and fact are present courts often grant consolidation. However, this is not the only factor at issue, and this does not eliminate the courts discretion to determine whether consolidation is proper. Instead, the court s discretion should be accorded great deference. HoIdinn;$,Inc. v. Tows LLP, 32 A.D.3d 337,339, Dept. 2006) as long as the Court considers the appropriate factors. 821 N.Y.S.2d 162, 165 (lSt Among other factors, the Court must consider judicial economy. Where both cases are at similar stages of discovery and involve the same parties and questions of fact and law, it is proper to consolidate. &, u, St. Deli v. Paramoynt 43 d 1 L.R,,89 A.D.3d 573,932 ~ 1 ~ [* 3] N.Y.S.2d 694 (1 Dept. 201 l)(where, in addition, full relief was only available in one of the actions). However, where [tlhe two actions are at completely different stages of discovery, denial of consolidation is appropriate because it would unduly delay the resolution of the older action. Barnes v. Cathers and Dembrosky, 5 A.D.3d 122, 122, 771 N.Y.S.2d 895,895 (lJtDept. 2004). Thus, where one case is ready for trial and the other is not, the First Department has regularly upheld the trial court s decision to deny consolidation. fgg,u, b a c Assur. Corn. v. h 94 Countrywide Home Loans. h, A.D.3d 445,456,91 N.Y.S.2d 492,492 (I Dept. 2012); Dias v, B m, 188 A.D.2d 331,331, 591 N.Y.S.2d 163, 163 (1st Dept. 1992). This is true even if there are common questions of law and fact. & Ahmed v. C.D. Kobsons, Inc., 73 A.D.3d 440, v, Port Auth, Trans-Hudson Corn., 1 441,904 N.Y.S.2d 366, 367 (1st Dept. 2010); A.D.3d 118, 119, 766N.Y.S.2d429,430 (1stDept. 2003). Here, the two cases are at completely different stages of discovery. The parties filed the request for judicial intervention in Remache I - a 2010 case - over 16 months ago, and the parties have appeared in Court and by phone for several discovery conferences. The last courtordered deposition date was April 2,2012, and the parties did not seek to extend that date. Also, the discovery deadline was April 20,2012, and the parties did not seek extra time for discovery or seek to extend the April 23,2012 Note of Issue deadline. Pursuant to the terms of the written discovery orders - the preliminary conference order of March 30,201 1, and the September 14, 20 11 and November 16,2011 compliance conference orders - and to the terms of the unwritten telephone conference orders as well, unless the parties seek extensions of these dates in a timely fashion andor for good cause, the deadlines are not extended. Moreover, absent a showing of good cause, the discovery is deemed waived. Movants have not shown good cause or even 2 . . . . . -- . ... . [* 4] alleged that discovery i s outstanding. Moreover, they did not seek Court assistance at any point between the last Court conference, on March 7,2012, and the Note of Issue deadline, April 23, 2012. This motion was not made until after the discovery and Note of Issue deadlines. Therefore, all discovery in Remache I is deemed complete and the action must be placed on the trial calendar within 30 days of the date of entry of this order. Remache 11, on the other hand, is a brand new lawsuit involving a new defendant. There has not yet been a request for judicial intervention in that matter, and there is no indication in movants papers or in the court computer system that the defendant in that action has answered. The alleged accident occurred in December of 2008 and the earlier action was commenced in a February of 20 11;yet, Rernache I1 w s not commenced until December of 20 1 1. There is no explanation as to why it took so long to identify and include the management company when the owners already were in the case and subject to discovery. It appears that no discovery has been conducted in this second action, and there is no indication as to whether movants have a relationship with the management company such that the need for additional discovery will be limited. There also is no explanation as to why it took from December of 201 1 t o May of 2012 for rnovants to make this motion, even though there have been three court conferences in Remache I since the commencement of Remache 11. Therefore, the Court concludes that consolidation would unduly delay Remache I. The Court notes that the parties failure to make this motion or seek extensions in a timely fashion, and movants failure to provide in its motion papers explanations about the state of discovery, the reasons for their delay, and the relationship between themselves and the defendant in Remache 11, also contributed to this Court s determination. The Court further notes that Remache I1 has not 3 [* 5] been activated through the purchase of a request for judicial intervention and that, as previously stated, it appears that the defendant in that action has not answered yet. Absent any explanation to the contrary about the status of the two cases or any assurances that discovery can be streamlined, the Court must conclude that consolidation would impede efficient litigation. Accordingly, it is ORDERED that the motion is denied although unopposed. Dated:Juh* 's ,2012 Enter: FILED JUN 2 1 2012 NEW YORK COUNTY CLERKS OFFICE 4

Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.