Berman v. County of Suffolk

26 A.D.3d 307, 812 N.Y.S.2d 559
CourtAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York
DecidedFebruary 7, 2006
StatusPublished
Cited by7 cases

This text of 26 A.D.3d 307 (Berman v. County of Suffolk) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

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

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

Related

I.R. v. Santos
2026 NY Slip Op 00270 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2026)
Wright v. New York City Transit Authority
142 A.D.3d 1163 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2016)
Parris v. New York City Transit Authority
140 A.D.3d 938 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2016)
Matthew H. v. County of Nassau
131 A.D.3d 135 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2015)
Patino v. County of Nassau
124 A.D.3d 738 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2015)
Abrams v. Excellent Bus Service, Inc.
91 A.D.3d 681 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2012)
Galarza v. Crown Container Co.
90 A.D.3d 703 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2011)
Winderman v. Brooklyn/McDonald Avenue Shoprite Associates, Inc.
85 A.D.3d 1018 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2011)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
26 A.D.3d 307, 812 N.Y.S.2d 559, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/berman-v-county-of-suffolk-nyappdiv-2006.