J & A Vending, Inc., Appellant, v. J.A.M. Vending, Inc., Respondent. (And a Third-Party Action.) (Action No. 1.); J & A Vending, Inc., et al., Plaintiffs, v. Eagle & Fein et al., Defendants. (Action No. 2.); J.A.M. Vending, Inc., et al., Plaintiffs, v. Milton Small et al., Defendants. (Action No. 3.); J.A.M. Vending, Inc., Plaintiff, v. Jerry Dugger et al., Defendants. (And a Third-Party Action.) (Action No. 4.)

—In four related actions, inter alla, to recover damages for breach of contract and fraud, which were joined for trial, the plaintiff in Action No. 1, J & A Vending, Inc., appeals from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Nassau County (Burke, J.), dated December 16, 1998, as denied its motion, inter alla, for a separate trial in that action.

Ordered that the order is affirmed insofar as appealed from, with costs.

The denial of the motion of J & A Vending, Inc., inter alla, for a separate trial in Action No. 1 was a proper exercise of discretion. A trial court has broad discretion in determining whether to order a joint trial of several actions (see, Megyesi v Automotive Rentals, 115 AD2d 596; Mideal Homes Corp. v L & C Concrete Work, 90 AD2d 789). The interests of justice and judicial economy are better served by a joint trial in those cases where, as here, the actions share material questions of law or fact (see, Megyesi v Automotive Rentals, supra, at 596; Import Alley v Mid-Island Shopping Plaza, 103 AD2d 797; Mideal Homes Corp. v L & C Concrete Work, supra, at 789). Ritter, J. P., Friedmann, Feuerstein and Schmidt, JJ., concur.