Jean-Baptiste v Richard
Annotate this CaseDecided on December 9, 2019
Supreme Court, Kings County
Magdala Jean-Baptiste, Plaintiff,
against
Robert Richard, BOBBY CAB CORP. and ASHRAF RAMADAN, Defendants.
516472/18
Attorney for Plaintiff in Action 1 Magdala Jean-Baptiste
Harmon Linder & Rogowsky
3 Park Avenue, 23rd Floor
Suite 2300
New York, NY 10016
(212) 732-3665
Attorney for Plaintiff in Action 2 Esther Pierre
Oshman Mirisola Law Group, PLLC
80 8th Ave — 9th Floor
New York, NY 10011
(212) 601-9300
Attorneys for Defendant Robert Richard
Richard A. Lilling, Esq.
Milber Makris Plousadis & Seiden, L.L.P.
100 Woodbury Road, Suite 402
Woodbury, NY 11797
(516) 712-4000
Attorney for defendants in Action 1 & Action 2 Bobby Cab Corp. and Ashraf Ramadan
One Metro Tech Center, 8th Floor
Brooklyn, NY 11201
(718) 424-2444
Francois A. Rivera, J.
Recitation in accordance with CPLR 2219 (a) of the papers considered on the notice of motion filed by defendant, Robert Richard (hereinafter Richard) on August 15, 2019, under motion sequence number one, for an order pursuant to CPLR 602 consolidating for discovery and trial the instant action with another related action. The motion is unopposed.
Notice of Motion
Affirmation in Support
Exhibits A-I
BACKGROUND
On August 13, 2018, Magdala Jean-Baptiste commenced the instant action (hereinafter Action 1) to recover damages for personal injury against defendants Richard, Bobby Cab Corp (hereinafter BCC), and Ashraf Ramadan (hereinafter Ramadan) by filing a summons and verified complaint with the Kings County Clerk's Office (hereinafter KCCO).
By joint verified answer with cross-claims dated September 27, 2018, defendants BCC and Ramadan joined issue. By verified answer with cross-claims dated July 26, 2019, Richard joined issue.
The verified complaint of Jean-Baptiste in Action 1 alleges the following salient facts. On April 7, 2018, at approximately 12:40 A.M., Richard was traveling on 907L South Bound FDR Drive at or near its intersection with East Houston Street with Jean-Baptiste as a passenger in his vehicle. At that time, Richard collided with a vehicle owned by BBC and operated by Ramadan (hereinafter the accident).Jean-Baptiste has alleged that the accident was caused by Richard and Ramadan's careless and negligent operation of their respective vehicles. Jean-Baptiste has also alleged that she sustained serious injuries caused by the accident.
On February 22, 2019, Esther Pierre (hereinafter Pierre) commenced an action bearing Index Number 503955/2019 (hereinafter Action 2) to recover damages for personal injury against defendants Richard, BCC and Ramadan by filing a summons and verified complaint with KCCO.
By joint verified answer with cross-claims dated April 11, 2019, defendants BCC and Ramadan joined issue in Action 2. By verified answer with cross-claims dated June 26, 2019, Richard joined issue in Action 2.
The verified complaint of Pierre in Action 2 alleges the following salient facts. On April 7, 2018, at approximately 12:40 A.M., Richard was traveling on 907L South Bound FDR Drive at or near its intersection with East Houston Street with plaintiff Pierre as a passenger in his vehicle. At that time, Richard collided with a vehicle owned by BBC and operated by Ramadan. Pierre has alleged that the collision was caused by Richard and Ramadan's careless and negligent operation of their respective vehicles. Pierre has also alleged that she sustained serious injuries caused by the accident.
[*2]MOTION PAPERS
Richard's motion papers consist of an affirmation of counsel and nine exhibits labeled A through I. Exhibit A is Jean-Baptiste's summons and verified complaint for Action 1. Exhibit B is Richard's verified answer with cross-claims for Action 1. Exhibit C is BCC and Ramadan's joint verified answer with cross-claims for Action 1. Exhibit D is Jean-Baptiste's verified bill of particulars for Action 1. Exhibit E is Pierre's summons and verified complaint for Action 2. Exhibit F is BCC and Ramadan's joint verified answer with cross-claims for Action 2.Exhibit G is Richard's verified answer with cross-claims for Action 2. Exhibit H is Pierre's verified bill of particulars for Action 2. Exhibit I is a New York State Department of Motor Vehicle Police Accident Report regarding the accident.
LAW AND APPLICATION
By the instant motion, Richard seeks an order pursuant to CPLR 602 consolidating Action 1 and Action 2 for discovery and trial.
CPLR 602 provides as follows:
Consolidation (a) Generally. When actions involving a common question of law or fact are pending before a court, the court, upon motion, may order a joint trial of any or all the matters in issue, may order the actions consolidated, and may make such other orders concerning proceedings therein as may tend to avoid unnecessary costs or delay. (b) Cases pending in different courts. Where an action is pending in the supreme court it may, upon motion, remove to itself an action pending in another court and consolidate it, or have it tried together with that in the supreme court. Where an action is pending in the county court, it may, upon motion, remove to itself an action pending in a city, municipal, district or justice court in the county and consolidate it or have it tried together with that in the county court.
Where common questions of law or fact exist, a motion to consolidate or for a joint trial pursuant to CPLR 602 (a) should be granted absent a showing of prejudice to a substantial right by the party opposing the motion (Oboku v New York City Transit Authority, 141 AD3d 708 [2nd Dept 2016]). The trial court has broad discretion in determining whether to order consolidation (Hanover Ins. Group v Mezansky, 105 AD3d 1000 [2nd Dept 2013]). In exercising that discretion, the court has to consider that the interests of justice and judicial economy are better served by consolidation in those cases where the actions share material questions of law or fact (Hanover Ins. Group, 105 AD3d 1000).
The verified complaints in Action 1 and Action 2 clearly show that the plaintiff in each of those actions was a passenger in Richard's vehicle at the time of the accident. It further shows that plaintiffs are asserting claims against Richard, BCC, and Ramadan, the owner and operators of the vehicles involved in the collision. The allegations in both actions state that the accident was caused by Richard and Ramadan's careless and negligent operation of their respective vehicles. Inasmuch as both actions arise from the same accident, they share material issues of law and fact. Consolidation would serve the interest of justice and judicial economy and avoid the potential for inconsistent verdicts (Moses v B & E Lorge Family Trust, 147 AD3d 1043 [2nd Dept 2017] citing, Lecorps v Bromberg, 127 AD3d 931, 932 [2nd Dept 2015]). In addition, there is no indication that joining the actions would unfairly prejudice any parties to the two actions.
CONCLUSION
The motion by defendant Robert Richard for an order pursuant to CPLR 602 to [*3]consolidate for discovery and trial the instant action bearing Index Number 516472/2018 with the action bearing Index Number 503955/2019 is granted.
The foregoing constitutes the decision and order of this Court.
Enter:
__________________________________________x
J.S.C.
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.
