Shiwbalak and White's motion papers consist of the notice of motion, an affirmation of counsel and two exhibits labeled A to B. Exhibit A is an order of this Court dated March 23, 2018, issued in the matter of Joseph White v Ricardo St. Juste, Index number 509253/2017 (hereinafter action number three). The March 23, 2018 order joined action number three for trial with two other Kings County Supreme Court cases bearing Index numbers 521135/2016 (hereinafter action number one) and 505122/2017 (hereinafter action number two). Exhibit B consists of copies of a summons and verified complaint in the matter of Ricardo St. Juste v Somdutt Shiwbalak and Joseph White, Index number 518513/2017 (hereinafter action number four). The annexed summons and complaint was dated September 25, 2017 and the joint answer of defendants Shiwbalak and White was dated June 1, 2018.

On November 30, 2016, Tracey Weston Ladnow (hereinafter Ladnow) commenced the instant action for damages for personal injury by filing a summons and complaint with the Kings County Clerk's office. By joint verified answer with cross-claims dated March 30, 2017, defendants Shiwbalak and White joined issue.

Ladnow's complaint has alleged the following salient facts. On September 17, 2017, at around 8:15 p.m., Ladnow was a passenger in car operated by Ricardo St. Juste (hereinafter Juste) bearing registration number T691743C. When Juste reached the intersection of Atlantic and Hicks street in Brooklyn, New York, his vehicle collided with another vehicle owned by Shiwbalak and operated by White. Ladnow claims that the collision (hereinafter the subject accident) was due to Juste and White's negligent operation of their respective vehicles. Ladnow further claims that the collision caused her to sustain serious physical injures.

On September 25, 2017 Juste commenced an action for damages for personal injuries against Shiwbalak and White by filing a summons and verified complaint under action number four with the Kings County Clerk's office. Juste's complaint alleges that the subject accident was caused by White's negligent operation of his vehicle and that the collision caused Juste to sustain serious physical injuries.

By the instant motion, defendants Shiwbalak and White seek an order pursuant to CPLR 602 joining action number four for trial with actions number one, two and three.

CPLR 602 provides as follows:

Consolidation (a) Generally. When actions involving a common question of law or fact are pending before a court, the court, upon motion, may order a joint trial of any or all the matters in issue, may order the actions consolidated, and may make such other orders concerning proceedings therein as may tend to avoid unnecessary costs or delay. (b) Cases pending in different courts. Where an action is pending in the supreme court it may, upon motion, remove itself an action pending in a city, municipal, district or justice court in the county and consolidate it or have it tried together with that in the county court.

On March 23, 2018, actions one, two and three were joined for trial by order of Judge Francois A. Rivera of Supreme Court, Kings County because all three actions involved the subject accident and therefore involved common questions of law and fact.

A trial court has "wide discretion" to order or deny a joint trial. In exercising that discretion, the controlling principle is that "the interests of justice and judicial economy are better served by joint trials wherever possible" (Hanover Ins. Group v Mezansky, 105 AD3d 1000 [2nd Dept 2013][internal citations omitted]). A motion to consolidate or join should be granted absent a showing of prejudice to a substantial right by a party opposing the motion since it will bring to the jury's attention the existence of insurance, any such prejudice is outweighed by the possibility of inconsistent verdicts if separate trials ensue (Hanover Ins. Group v Mezansky, 105 AD3d 1000 [2nd Dept 2013][internal citations omitted]). Inasmuch as the motion is unopposed, no party has raised a claim that granting joinder or consolidation will cause substantial prejudice. Nor is the issue of substantial prejudice to any party apparent from the papers submitted by the movant. Inasmuch as the instant action and action number four involve the same subject accident and common issues of fact and law, judicial economy favors joinder of the actions (see CPLR 602; Reckson Assoc. Realty Corp., v Blasland, Bouck & Lee, Inc., 230 AD2d 723 [2nd Dept 1996] citing Strasser v Neuringer, 137 AD2d 750, 751 [2nd Dept 1988]).

Defendants Somdutt Shiwbalak and Joseph A. White's motion for an order pursuant to CPLR 602 joining the trial of the instant action with action number two, three and four is granted.

Ordered, that each action shall retain its own index number, file a separate RJI, separate notes of issue, and file separate judgments; and it is further,

Ordered, that the order in which the parties open and close shall be determined by the court, and it is further,

Ordered, that a copy of this order with notice of entry be served upon all parties in the [*2]action.

The foregoing constitutes the decision and order of this Court.