Mothersil v. Town Sports International
Cases that cite this one
8 later published cases cite this decision.
- Ingram v. City of New York (New York Supreme Court, New York County 2025)
- Sumi Chuang Yeh v. Leonardo (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2015)
- Zili v. City of New York (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2013)
- Zili v. City of New York (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2013)
- Zawadzki v. 903 E. 51st Street, LLC (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2011)
- Quiroz v. Beitia (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2009)
- Lelekakis v. Kamamis (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2007)
- Naylor v. Knoll Farms of Suffolk County, Inc. (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2006)
This list shows which later cases cite this one. It does not say how they treated it, and no review of that has been done. Not a substitute for Shepard’s or KeyCite — verify before relying.
Opinion of the Court
In an action, inter alia, to recover damages for gender discrimination and retaliatory discrimination under Administrative Code of the City of New York § 8-107, the defendants appeal from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Johnson, J), dated September 29, 2004, as denied that branch of their motion pursuant to CPLR 603 which was to
Ordered that the order is affirmed insofar as appealed from, with costs.
The decision whether to grant a severance pursuant to CPLR 603 is a matter of judicial discretion which should not be disturbed on appeal absent a showing of prejudice to a substantial right of the party seeking severance (see Finning v Niagara Mohawk Power Corp., 281 AD2d 844 [2001]; McIver v Canning, 204 AD2d 698 [1994]; Guilford v Netter, 179 AD2d 801 [1992]; see also Shanley v Callanan Indus., 54 NY2d 52, 57 [1981]). The Supreme Court providently exercised its discretion in denying that branch of the defendants’ motion which was to sever the causes of action asserted by the plaintiff Lourdes Mothersil from the causes of action asserted by the plaintiff Jeanette Curry. There are common factual and legal issues, and the defendants failed to establish that a single trial would result in it suffering prejudice to a substantial right (see McCrimmon v County of Nassau, 302 AD2d 372 [2003]; Guilford v Netter, supra; County of Chenango Indus. Dev. Agency v Lockwood Greene Engrs., 111 AD2d 508 [1985]; McIver v Canning, supra; cf. Hickson v Mt. Sinai Med. Ctr., 87 AD2d 527 [1982]). Cozier, J.P., Ritter, Goldstein and Lifson, JJ., concur.
Case-law data current through December 31, 2025. Source: CourtListener bulk data.