It is well settled that the court has considerable discretion in deciding whether severance is appropriate (see Shanley v Callanan Indus., 54 NY2d 52, 57 [ 19811; Quiroz v Beitia,68 AD3d 957 [2009]; Naylor v Knoll FarmsofSufolk County,Inc.,31AD3d 726 [2006]; sce also CPLR 603; CPLR 1010). Severance of the second third-party action is warranted given: (1) the delay that would be created in the absence of severance; (2) the completion of discovery in the main and third-party action; and (3) the prejudice to plaintiffs. who are ready for trial (see Meczkowski v E. W. Howell Co., Inc., 63 AD3d 803 [2009]; A:)reov Baez, 29 AD3d 833 [2006]; Wassel v Niagara Mohawk Power Corp.,307 AD2d75: [2003];SinghvCityofNewYork,294AD2d422[2002];AmbrianovBowman, 245AD211404[19971).

CPLR section 603 provides that :
In furtherance of convenience or to avoid prejudice the court may order a severance of claims, court ‘may order a separate trial of any claim, or of any separate issue. The court may order the trial of any claim or issue prior to the trial of the others.

CPLR section 1010 provides that :
The court may dismiss a third-party complaint without prejudice, order a separate trial of the third-party claim or of any separate issue thereof, or make such other order as may be just. In exercising its discretion, the coc rt shall consider whether the controversy between the third-party plaintiff and the third-party defendant will unduly delay the detmnination of the main action or prejudice the substantial rights of any party.