Congratulations to Keri Wehrheim and Gerard Ferrara for securing an important ruling in this case, which reaffirms the principle that distinct claims stemming from unrelated accidents must be litigated independently unless substantial overlap in facts or legal issues exists. The decision, authored by Hon. Betsy Barros, Hon. Joseph J. Maltese, Hon. Paul Wooten, and Hon. Laurence L. Love of the Appellate Division, Second Department, upheld the trial court’s discretion in denying the plaintiffs’ motion to consolidate.
This case arose from two separate motor vehicle accidents involving the same plaintiff just two days apart in May 2019. The plaintiff sought to consolidate the actions for trial, arguing that overlapping injuries warranted a combined proceeding. However, the court found no common questions of law or fact between the two accidents, emphasizing that consolidation is inappropriate where the incidents are unrelated.
Keri and Gerard successfully demonstrated that the plaintiff failed to provide adequate evidence of overlapping injuries or any other justification for consolidation. As the court noted, without medical evidence or specific allegations of interconnected issues, consolidation would undermine judicial efficiency rather than promote it.
This ruling highlights the importance of a strong, evidence-based argument against improper consolidation, ensuring that cases are adjudicated on their merits without unnecessary procedural entanglement. Scahill Law Group's precise and effective advocacy was instrumental in achieving this outcome.