Learn About the Law
Get help with your legal needs
FindLaw’s Learn About the Law features thousands of informational articles to help you understand your options. And if you’re ready to hire an attorney, find one in your area who can help.
Charles MARULLO, et al., Plaintiffs–Respondents, v. The CITY OF NEW YORK, et al., Defendants–Appellants.
James Intriago, et al., Plaintiffs–Respondents, v. The City of New York, et al., Defendants–Appellants.
Luigi Barillaro, et al., Plaintiffs–Respondents, v. The City of New York, et al., Defendants–Appellants.
Order, Supreme Court, Bronx County (Laura G. Douglas, J.), entered February 28, 2018, which, to the extent appealed from as limited by the briefs, granted plaintiffs Charles and Dawn Marullo's motion to consolidate three Labor Law cases for a joint unified trial on liability and damages, unanimously modified, on the law and in the exercise of discretion, to deny so much of the motion seeking a joint unified trial as to damages, and otherwise affirmed, without costs.
Plaintiffs allege that they suffered nearly identical types of injuries caused by the same gas explosion. As a result, the medical testimony presented by plaintiffs regarding their damages would overlap. Despite the medical evidence, we find that individual issues would predominate if the damages claims were tried together. Although plaintiffs suffered similar types of injuries, their injuries are distinct—each plaintiff sustained different degrees of burns to different parts of his body. Moreover, each plaintiff will have a distinct medical history and will have received individualized medical treatment (see 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] ). Any benefit gained by trying plaintiffs' damages claims together would be outweighed by the potential prejudice to defendants.
We have considered the remaining arguments and find them unavailing.
Thank you for your feedback!
As the largest network of trusted legal brands, we help firms build authority across the platforms consumers and AI systems rely on most. Our network helps attorneys strengthen visibility, credibility, and preference where legal decisions begin.
Docket No: 9344N
Decided: May 16, 2019
Court: Supreme Court, Appellate Division, First Department, New York.
Search our directory by legal issue
Enter information in one or both fields (Required)
Harness the power of our directory with your own profile. Select the button below to sign up.
Learn more about FindLaw’s newsletters, including our terms of use and privacy policy.
Get help with your legal needs
FindLaw’s Learn About the Law features thousands of informational articles to help you understand your options. And if you’re ready to hire an attorney, find one in your area who can help.
Search our directory by legal issue
Enter information in one or both fields (Required)