Cutsogeorge v. Hertz Corp.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Cutsogeorge v. Hertz Corp.

239 A.D.2d 540, 658 N.Y.S.2d 77, 1997 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 5680

CourtAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York

DecidedMay 27, 1997

StatusPublished

Cited by4 cases

This text of 239 A.D.2d 540 (Cutsogeorge v. Hertz Corp.) 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

Cutsogeorge v. Hertz Corp., 239 A.D.2d 540, 658 N.Y.S.2d 77, 1997 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 5680 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1997).

Pincite

Opinion

In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, the plaintiff appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Lerner, J.), dated August 21, 1996, which denied his motion for a unified trial on the issues of liability and damages.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, with one bill of costs to the respondents appearing separately and filing separate briefs.

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, CPLR 603; Rothbard v Woolworth Co., 233 AD2d 434; Martinez v Town of Babylon, 191 AD2d 483; Armstrong v Adelman Automotive Parts Distrib. Corp., 176 AD2d 773; see also, 22 NYCRR 202.42). It is only where the nature of the injuries sustained has an important bearing on the issue of liability that a joint trial on both issues is permitted (see, Dulin v Maher, 200 AD2d 707; Amato v Hudson County Montessori School, 185 AD2d 803). Here, the plaintiff failed to show a need to introduce evidence of the injuries he suffered in order to establish liability. Accordingly, the Supreme Court properly denied his application [541]*541for a unified trial (see, Dulin v Maher, supra). Bracken, J. P., O’Brien, Santucci, Friedmann and Goldstein, 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, the plaintiff appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Lerner, J.), dated August 21, 1996, which denied his motion for a unified trial on the issues of liability and damages.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, with one bill of costs to the respondents appearing separately and filing separate briefs.

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, CPLR 603; Rothbard v Woolworth Co., 233 AD2d 434; Martinez v Town of Babylon, 191 AD2d 483; Armstrong v Adelman Automotive Parts Distrib. Corp., 176 AD2d 773; see also, 22 NYCRR 202.42). It is only where the nature of the injuries sustained has an important bearing on the issue of liability that a joint trial on both issues is permitted (see, Dulin v Maher, 200 AD2d 707; Amato v Hudson County Montessori School, 185 AD2d 803). Here, the plaintiff failed to show a need to introduce evidence of the injuries he suffered in order to establish liability. Accordingly, the Supreme Court properly denied his application [541]*541for a unified trial (see, Dulin v Maher, supra). Bracken, J. P., O’Brien, Santucci, Friedmann and Goldstein, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

239 A.D.2d 540, 658 N.Y.S.2d 77, 1997 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 5680, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/cutsogeorge-v-hertz-corp-nyappdiv-1997.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack