SEAMAN v. CITY OF NEW YORK (2025)

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Judy H. Kim, J.), entered December 19, 2023, which denied plaintiff's motion to consolidate this matter with the matter of McCann v. City of New York, index No. 500870/23 [Sup Ct, Kings County], unanimously affirmed, without costs.

The motion court properly denied consolidation (see CPLR 602[a];  Matter of Progressive Ins. Co. [Vasquez-Countrywide Ins. Co.], 10 A.D.3d 518, 519, 782 N.Y.S.2d 21 [1st Dept. 2004]).  Although common questions of law and fact are present, “individual issues predominate, concerning particular circumstances applicable to each plaintiff” (Addison v. New York Presbyt. Hosp./Columbia Univ. Med. Ctr., 52 A.D.3d 269, 270, 860 N.Y.S.2d 32 [1st Dept. 2008] [internal quotation marks omitted]).  Both plaintiffs assert identical claims against identical defendants and generally allege that they were harassed and discriminated against based on their breast cancer diagnoses, including through similar conduct by defendant John Santucci.  However, the actual transactions and incidents of discrimination or harassment at issue are separate, occurring at different times, to different officers, working in different precincts, with different medical histories, and largely different witnesses.  Consolidation would also prejudice defendants, as it would create a risk of improper bolstering and juror confusion (see Tarshish v. Associated Dry Goods Corp., 232 A.D.2d 246, 247, 648 N.Y.S.2d 298 [1st Dept. 1996];  Bender v. Underwood, 93 A.D.2d 747, 748, 461 N.Y.S.2d 301 [1st Dept. 1983];  Bradford v. Coleman Catholic High School, 110 A.D.2d 965, 966, 488 N.Y.S.2d 105 [3d Dept. 1985]).