Consolidation is generally favored in the interested of judicial economy and ease of decision-making where cases present common questions of law and facts, unless the opposing party demonstrates that consolidation will prejudice a substantial right. See, Rist v. Comi, 260 AD2d 890 (3d Dept. 1999); Progressive Insurance Co. v. Vasquez, 10 AD3d 518 (1st Dept. 2004); Eagle Pet Service Co., Inc. v. Pacific Employers Insurance Co., 102 AD2d 814 (2d Dept. 1984).
It is not necessary, for purposes of consolidation, that all parties or all issues be common to both actions. See, Fourteen Sharot Place Realty Corp. v. Miceli, 125 AD2d 634 (2d Dept. 1986). The commonalities of the actions and the pressing need for judicial relief may constitute sufficient bases for consolidation of actions.
