Floricic v. City of New York

2024 NY Slip Op 31143(U)

• Court: New York Supreme Court, New York County
• Decided: April 4, 2024
• Status: Unpublished

Opinion

Floricic v City of New York 2024 NY Slip Op 31143(U) April 4, 2024 Supreme Court, New York County Docket Number: Index No 159259/2014 Judge: Adam Silvera Cases posted with a "30000" identifier, i.e., 2013 NY Slip Op 30001(U), are republished from various New York State and local government sources, including the New York State Unified Court System's eCourts Service. This opinion is uncorrected and not selected for official publication. INDEX NO. 159259/2014 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 527 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 04/04/2024

SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK NEW YORK COUNTY PRESENT: HON. ADAM SILVERA PART 40 Justice --------------X INDEX NO. 159259/2014 DAVOR DAVID FLORICIC , JENNY FLORICIC , MOTION DATE 2/15/2024 Plaintiff, MOTION SEQ. NO. 012 - V-

CITY OF NEW YORK, MTA, NYCTA, MABSTOA, METROPOLITAN TRANSP. AUTHORITY, NYC 2 WAY INTERNATIONAL, LTD., D.B.A. CORPORATE TRANSPORTATION GROUP, CORPORATE TRANSPORTATION GROUP, LTD., CORPORATE TRANSPORTATION GROUP WORLDWIDE, DECISION + ORDER ON INC., CORPORATE TRANSPORTATION GROUP MOTION INTERNATIONAL, ALLO CORPORATE TRANSPORTATION GROUP , LLC,CORPORATE TRANSPORTATION GROUP, INC.,HYBRID CARS, LTD., BEHZON SHARIPOV, PRUDE CONSTRUCTION CORP.,

Defendant. -------------------------------------X

PRUDE CONSTRUCTION CORP. Third-Party Index No. 595666/2017 Plaintiff,

-against-

DELANEY ASSOCIATES, LP

Defendant. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -- - -----------------------------------------X

The following e-filed documents, listed by NYSCEF document number (Motion 012) 517, 518, 519, 520, 521 , 522,523,524,525,526 were read on this motion to/for BIFURCATE

Upon the foregoing documents, and after oral argument on February 15, 2024, it is

ordered that defendant the City of New York' s motion seeking to bifurcate the trial is denied.

Here; moving defendant argues that bifurcation will simplify the issues for the jury,

promote expeditious resolution of this action, that the issue of liability is separate and apart from

the issue of damages, and that a unified trial would be prejudicial as the jurors would be 159259/2014 FLORICIC, DAVOR DAVID vs. CITY OF NEW YORK Page 1 of 4 Motion No. 012

1 of 4 [* 1] INDEX NO. 159259/2014 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 527 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 04/04/2024

sympathetic to plaintiff upon hearing of the damages. In support, defendant the City of New

York cites to, inter alia, CPLR §603 and 22 NYCRR §202.42(a).

Plaintiff opposes defendant's motion arguing that defendant the City of New York has

failed to meet its burden to establish that bifurcation would simplify the issues. Moreover,

plaintiff argues that his injuries are intertwined with the question of liability in that the jury needs

all of the evidence in order to fairly decide the case. According to plaintiff, the issues of liability

and damages must be tried together as the medical records, and evidence of damages, establish

how plaintiff was injured and how the accident happened. In reply, defendant the City of New

York argues, inter alia, that the issue of plaintiff's injuries have no bearing on how the accident

occurred.

CPLR §603 states, in part, that "[i]n furtherance of convenience or to avoid prejudice the

court may order a severance of claims, or may order a separate trial of any claim, or of any

separate issue." 22 NYCRR §202.42(a) states that "Judges arc encouraged to order a bifurcated

trial of the issues ofliability and damages in any action for personal inj my where it appears that

bifurcation may assist in a clarification or simplification of issues and a fair and more

expeditious resolution of the action." Here, plaintiff alleges that he was operating his motorcycle

when he was struck by a vehicle operated by defendant Behzon Sharipov. Defendant Sharipov

testified that on-going construction in the roadway led to confusion as to where on the road he

could tum, as the partial construction left the street unmarked and without signage. Defendant

the City of New York alleges that its bicycle lane construction project was not a proximate cause

of plaintiff's injuries.

The Appellate Division, First Department held that '·where the question of damages is so

interwoven with or related to that of liability that the former cannot properly or adequately be

159259/2014 FLORICIC, DAVOR DAVID vs. CITY OF NEW YORK Page 2 of 4 Motion No. 012

2 of 4 [* 2] INDEX NO. 159259/2014 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 527 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 04/04/2024

submitted to the jury independent of a consideration of the proofs bearing on the Iiability issue.

then, ordinarily. there is no justification for a severance of the issues." Afercudo v New York. 25

AD2d 75. 78 (1 st Dep 't 1966). The Court of Appeals has held that the issue of comparative

negligence is addressed and determined only when considering the damages that defendant owes

to a plaintiff. See Rodriguez v City of New York, 31 NY3d 312, 318 (2018). Thus, the issue of

plaintiffs comparative negligence regarding how the accident happened is, in actuality, an issue

which is considered only as to damages. As such, liability and damages cannot be easily

separated herein.

Moreover, the Court notes that the statutory, and case, law are clear that bifurcation is not

mandatory, nor is there a presumption of bifurcation. Rather, the Appellate Division has held that

"trial courts should use their discretion in determining, in accordance with the statewide rule,

whether bifurcation will assist in clarifying or simplifying the issues and in achieving a fair and

more expeditious resolution of the action". Castro v Malia Realty, LLC, 177 AD3d 58, 60 (2 nd

Dep't 2019). The court in Castro further held that "[a]lthough 22 NYCRR 202.42(a) encourages

bifurcation where it may assist in a clarification or simplification of issues and a fair and more

expeditious resolution of the action, it does not, on its face, contain ... [a] strong ... presumption in

favor of bifurcation". Id. at 63. It is clear from the case law that "bifurcation is not an absolute

given and it is the responsibility of the trial judge to exercise discretion in determining whether

bifurcation is appropriate in light of all relevant facts and circumstances presented by the

individual cases." Id. at 66.

Here, taking into account all the facts and circumstances in this action, and in order to

manage the court calendar and attain an expeditious trial, the factors for a unified trial outweigh

any potential prejudice raised by the moving defendant. Moreover, the law is clear that the Court

159259/2014 FLORICIC, DAVOR DAVID vs. CITY OF NEW YORK Page 3 of 4 Motion No. 012

3 of 4 [* 3] INDEX NO. 159259/2014 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 527 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 04/04/2024

.MAY order bifurcation if it assists in clarification of the issues AND a more expeditious

resolution of the action. See 22 NYCRR §202.42(a)(emphasis added). Here, a bifurcated trial

will not serve to expedite this action. CPLR 4011 explicitly provides that the "court may

determine the sequence in which the issues shall be tried and otherwise regulate the conduct of

the trial in order to achieve a speedy and unprejudiced disposition of the matters at issue in a

setting of proper decorum." The Court finds that a bifurcated trial would only serve to delay this

action and prolong the case which is contrary to the purpose of the statutes cited above. Thus, for

the reasons specified above and for the purpose of judicial economy, and based upon a thorough

review of the Court's already full calendar, a unified trial would be most appropriate herein. As

such, defendant the City of New York's motion is denied.

Accordingly, it is

ORDERED that defendant the City of New York's motion for a bifurcated trial is denied

in its entirety; and it is further

ORDERED that all counsel shall appear for a conference on April 18, 2024 at 9:30am, to

schedule a trial date, in room 422 of 60 Centre Street, New York, NY; and it is further

ORDERED that within 30 days of entry, plaintiff shall serve a copy of this decision/order

upon defendants with notice of entry.

This constitutes the Decision/Order of the Court.

4/4/2024 DATE DL ADAM SILVERA, J.S.C.

~ CHECK ONE: CASE DISPOSED NON-FINAL DISPOSITION

GRANTED 0 DENIED GRANTED IN PART □ OTHER APPLICATION: SETTLE ORDER SUBMIT ORDER

CHECK IF APPROPRIATE: INCLUDES TRANSFER/REASSIGN FIDUCIARY APPOINTMENT □ REFERENCE

159259/2014 FLORICIC, DAVOR DAVID vs. CITY OF NEW YORK Page 4 of 4 Motion No. 012

4 of 4 [* 4]