The following is a recitation pursuant to CPLR 2219(a) of the papers reviewed and considered on the motion to consolidate:

Notice of Motion, Affirmations, Exhibits 9-16

Upon the foregoing papers, this unopposed motion to consolidate is decided below.

The movant brings the instant motion seeking an order "for consolidation of the above-entitled actions for the purpose of a joint trial pursuant to Section 602 of the CPLR"; specifically, the instant action bearing Index No. 713398/2024, and the later action entitled Tova Anna Ariel v Lorig Yekhpairian, et. al., bearing Index No. 716018/2024 (the companion action), pending in the same court.

It is well-settled that, where two or more actions are pending before a court and they involve common questions or law and fact, CPLR 602 grants the court discretion to consolidate them or order them jointly tried (see CPLR 602[a]). Absent prejudice, such relief is favored to avoid unnecessary duplication of trials, save unnecessary costs and expense, and prevent resulting injustice from divergent decisions based on the same facts (see Gutman v Klein, 26 AD3d 464, 465 [2d Dept 2006]; Disa Realty, Inc. v Rao, 198 AD3d 869 [2d Dept 2021]). Applications to bring two or more related actions together are often categorically denominated as motions to consolidate under CPLR 602, when, in fact, CPLR 602 provides separate relief, differentiating between a joint trial and consolidation. This differentiation affects the mechanics of how the related actions will travel together.

"Consolidation has been described as the 'merging' or 'fusing' of two or more actions into one action" (HSBC Bank USA, N.A. v Francis, 214 AD3d 58, 62 [2d Dept 2023] [internal citations omitted]). The consolidated action proceeds under a single index number and caption, with a single group of plaintiffs against a single group of defendants, results in a single decision or verdict, and a single judgment with one bill of costs (see id.). By contrast, the joinder of two or more actions for trial under CPLR 602(a) continues the separateness of each of the actions [*2]presenting common questions of law or fact, allowing for joint proceedings but separate verdicts and judgments (see Calle v 2118 Flatbush Ave. Realty, LLC, 209 AD3d 961, 963 [2d Dept 2022]; Longo v Fogg, 150 AD3d 724, 725 [2d Dept 2017]); Sample v Temkin, 87 AD3d 686, 687 [2d Dept 2011]). Each action maintains its own index number and caption, and separate notes of issue are filed. Where a party, as here, is both a plaintiff and a defendant, the more appropriate method is a joint trial rather than consolidation (see Calle, 209 AD3d at 963; Mas-Edwards v Ultimate Services, Inc., 45 AD3d 540 [2d Dept 2007]).

Accordingly, the motion is granted without opposition to the extent that the instant action and the companion action shall be joined for trial, and it is hereby

ORDERED, that the instant action, bearing Index No. 713398/2024, and the companion action entitled Tova Anna Ariel v Lorig Yekhpairian, et. al., bearing Index No. 716018/2024, shall be joined for trial, and it is further

ORDERED, that each action joined for trial shall retain its own index number and separate Request for Judicial Invention and Note of Issue shall be filed for each action; and it is further

ORDERED, that movant shall file a copy of this Decision and Order with Notice of Entry on NYSCEF under the joined actions within twenty (20) days of entry; and it is further

ORDERED, the movant shall serve a copy of this Decision and Order with Notice of Entry upon all parties in the joined actions within twenty (20) days of entry.

This constitutes the Decision and Order of the Court.