Five Boro Psychological Servs., P.C. a/a/o Steve St. Louis & Carmelo Toussaint v Autoone Ins. Co.
Motion No: 2009-00742 KC 12-04-2009
Slip Opinion No: 2010 NY Slip Op 60699(U)
Decided on January 5, 2010
Appellate Term, Second Department, Motion Decision
Published by New York State Law Reporting Bureau pursuant to Judiciary Law § 431.
This motion is uncorrected and is not subject to publication in the Official Reports.


SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK

APPELLATE TERM : 2nd, 11th and 13th JUDICIAL DISTRICTS


PRESENT : WESTON, J.P., GOLIA and STEINHARDT, JJ.


NO. 2009-289 K C
NO. 2009-292 K C
NO. 2009-414 K C
NO. 2009-717 K C
NO. 2009-742 K C
NO. 2009-897 K C
FIVE BORO PSYCHOLOGICAL SERVICES, P.C.
a/a/o STEVE ST. LOUIS and CARMELO TOUSSAINT,

Appellant,

-against-

AUTOONE INS. CO.,

Respondent.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------x
FIVE BORO PSYCHOLOGICAL SERVICES, P.C.
a/a/o CLARENCE OSBOURNE,

Appellant,

-against-

AUTOONE INS. CO.,

Respondent.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------x
FIVE BORO PSYCHOLOGICAL SERVICES, P.C.
as assignee of JOSE HERNANDEZ,

Appellant,

-against-

AUTOONE INS. CO.,

Respondent.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------x
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------x
FIVE BORO PSYCHOLOGICAL SERVICES, P.C.
a/a/o ALEKSANDR SHKOLYAR,

Appellant,

-against-

AUTOONE INS. CO.,

Respondent.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------x
FIVE BORO PSYCHOLOGICAL SERVICES, P.C.
a/a/o DAVID MUSTIGA,

Appellant,

-against-

AUTOONE INS. CO.,

Respondent.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------x
FIVE BORO PSYCHOLOGICAL SERVICES, P.C.
a/a/o DIANA FISHLER and TYRONE BODDIE,

Appellant,

-against-

AUTOONE INS. CO.,

Respondent.

DECISION

Motion by appellant for consolidation and a preference is denied.