Berman v. County of Suffolk

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Berman v. County of Suffolk

26 A.D.3d 307, 812 N.Y.S.2d 559

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York·Decided February 7, 2006·Published·Cited by 7 cases

Opinion

In an action to recover damages for personal injuries and injury to property, the defendants appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Suffolk County (Baisley, Jr., J.), dated July 28, 2005, which denied their motion for a unified trial on the issues of liability and damages.

[308]*308Ordered that the order is affirmed, without costs or disbursements.

As a general rule, questions of liability and damages in a negligence action represent distinct and severable issues which should be tried and determined separately (see 22 NYCRR 202.42 [a]; Barrera v Skaggs-Walsh, Inc., 279 AD2d 442 [2001]; Rothbard v F.W. Woolworth Co., 233 AD2d 434 [1996]; Martinez v Town of Babylon, 191 AD2d 483, 484 [1993]). It is only where the nature of the injuries has an important bearing on the issue of liability that a joint trial of both issues is permitted (see Dulin v Maher, 200 AD2d 707 [1994]; Amato v Hudson Country Montessori School, 185 AD2d 803, 804 [1992]; cf. DeGregorio v Lutheran Med. Ctr., 142 AD2d 543, 544 [1988]). The Supreme Court providently denied the defendants’ motion for a unified trial, as the defendants failed to show a need to introduce evidence of the alleged injuries in order to establish that they were nonnegligent in the happening of this rear-end collision (see Barrera v Skaggs-Walsh, Inc., supra; Felice v Southside Hosp., 249 AD2d 359, 360 [1998]; Rothbard v F.W. Woolworth Co., supra). H. Miller, J.P., Crane, Krausman, Rivera and Lifson, JJ., concur.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

In an action to recover damages for personal injuries and injury to property, the defendants appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Suffolk County (Baisley, Jr., J.), dated July 28, 2005, which denied their motion for a unified trial on the issues of liability and damages.

[308]*308Ordered that the order is affirmed, without costs or disbursements.

As a general rule, questions of liability and damages in a negligence action represent distinct and severable issues which should be tried and determined separately (see 22 NYCRR 202.42 [a]; Barrera v Skaggs-Walsh, Inc., 279 AD2d 442 [2001]; Rothbard v F.W. Woolworth Co., 233 AD2d 434 [1996]; Martinez v Town of Babylon, 191 AD2d 483, 484 [1993]). It is only where the nature of the injuries has an important bearing on the issue of liability that a joint trial of both issues is permitted (see Dulin v Maher, 200 AD2d 707 [1994]; Amato v Hudson Country Montessori School, 185 AD2d 803, 804 [1992]; cf. DeGregorio v Lutheran Med. Ctr., 142 AD2d 543, 544 [1988]). The Supreme Court providently denied the defendants’ motion for a unified trial, as the defendants failed to show a need to introduce evidence of the alleged injuries in order to establish that they were nonnegligent in the happening of this rear-end collision (see Barrera v Skaggs-Walsh, Inc., supra; Felice v Southside Hosp., 249 AD2d 359, 360 [1998]; Rothbard v F.W. Woolworth Co., supra). H. Miller, J.P., Crane, Krausman, Rivera and Lifson, JJ., concur.

Berman v. County of Suffolk, 26 A.D.3d 307, 812 N.Y.S.2d 559 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2006).

Pincite

26 A.D.3d 307 (Berman v. County of Suffolk) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related