July 28, 2026

Motion to Consolidate versus Motion for a Joint Trial: What’s the difference?

A situation where a client is litigating two separate matters can sometimes be confusing. When I was a prosecutor in the Bronx, defense counsel would usually ask that the multiple matters be scheduled to meet on the same day to avoid too many trips to the courthouse, and the DA’s office never objected.  But that was criminal land. What do you do when you have a client litigating two separate matters in civil terms? 

Of course, it depends; in today’s blog, we’re going to talk about what happens when the two matters share common facts or law. In such a situation, you make one of two motions: a motion to consolidate or a motion for a joint trial. Both motions are governed by the same statute, that is, CPLR § 602(a). 

What’s the difference? 

For all intents and purposes, there is no real difference. As noted by the Second Department  in Cohalan v. Johnson Elec. Constr. Corp., 104 A.D.2d 920 [2d Dept 1984], there would be “no significant or practical distinction between the courtroom procedures that [would] occur if the actions [were] consolidated rather than jointly tried.” In Cohalan, the court recognized that proposed consolidation of two trials would have no negative impact on the judgment that could not be reconciled by the diligence of the court. 

Where does one bring a motion to consolidate or a motion for a joint trial? 

Generally, a motion for consolidation under the statute “is addressed to the sound discretion of the court, and absent a showing of substantial prejudice by the party opposing the motion, consolidation is proper where there are common questions of law and fact.” RCN Constr. Corp. v. Fleet Bank, N.A., 34 AD3d 776, 777 [2d Dept 2006]. Nonetheless, consolidation is not appropriate where the movant “fail[s] to specify the commonality in issues of law.” Id. at 777. A motion for consolidation should also be denied “where the actions involve dissimilar issues or disparate legal theories or where a joint trial would substantially prejudice an opposing party or pose a risk of rendering the litigation unwieldy.” Cromwell v. CRP 482 Riverdale Ave., LLC, 163 AD3d 626, 627-628 [2d Dept 2018] [internal citations omitted]. 

So which Do I Pick?

If you are worried about jury confusion, a joint trial is your best bet. Why? Because a joint trial results in the creation of two separate judicial actions in which the verdict and judgment are rendered independently from one another, although they are both decided by the same jury. In Mas-Edwards v. Ultimate Services, Inc., the Second Department noted that joint trials are the appropriate method of combination when “the actions involve different plaintiffs.” Mas-Edwards v. Ultimate Services, Inc., 45 A.D.3d 540 [2d Dept 2007]. While the courts a hundred years ago noted that the parties being a plaintiff in one matter and a defendant in another matter was no obstacle to the matters being consolidated, see Goldey v. Bierman, 201 A.D. 527 [App. Div. 1922], courts nowadays prefer to merge the matters into a joint trial, instead of a consolidated matter, so as to avoid jury confusion.

By contrast, the act of consolidation creates a fused judicial action where a singular judgment is rendered. For example, in Cieza v. 20th Ave. Realty, Inc., 109 A.D.3d 506 [2d Dept 2013], Cieza was first injured in a work-related accident, but his injuries were further exacerbated by an auto accident mere months later. The Second Department granted Plaintiff Cieza’s motion for consolidation, noting that “[i]n view of Cieza’s allegations that certain injuries that he sustained in the automobile accident were exacerbated by the work-related accident, in the interest of justice and judicial economy, and to avoid inconsistent verdicts, the two actions should be tried jointly.”Cieza v. 20th Ave. Realty, Inc., 109 A.D.3d 506, 506–07, supra.

Conclusion

When two matters share common laws or facts, a moving party would be able to either motion for a joint trial or consolidation. Both methods grant benefits for the judicial system as well as the individual parties by, inter alia, conserving judicial resources and avoiding inconsistent verdicts. However, the circumstances in which each situation will be granted will be dependent on the facts of the cases, needs of each party, and, ultimately, the discretion of the court.