Iszkiewicz v. Town of Lancaster

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Iszkiewicz v. Town of Lancaster

16 A.D.3d 1163, 790 N.Y.S.2d 899, 2005 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 2787

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

DecidedMarch 18, 2005

StatusPublished

Cited by5 cases

This text of 16 A.D.3d 1163 (Iszkiewicz v. Town of Lancaster) 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

Iszkiewicz v. Town of Lancaster, 16 A.D.3d 1163, 790 N.Y.S.2d 899, 2005 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 2787 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2005).

Pincite

Opinion

Appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Erie County (Eugene M. Fahey, J.), entered July 1, 2004 in a personal injury action. The order denied plaintiffs motion to bifurcate the trial.

It is hereby ordered that the order so appealed from be and the same hereby is unanimously affirmed without costs.

Memorandum: Supreme Court did not abuse its discretion in denying plaintiffs motion to bifurcate the trial. In opposing the motion, defendants established that “bifurcation would not ‘assist in a clarification or simplification of issues and a fair and more expeditious resolution of the action’ ” (Mazur v Mazur, 288 AD2d 945, 945-946 [2001], quoting 22 NYCRR 202.42 [a]). In addition, defendants established that the nature of plaintiffs injuries has “an important bearing on the issue of liability” (Martinez v Town of Babylon, 191 AD2d 483, 484 [1993] [internal quotation marks omitted]; see Echeverria v City of New York, 166 AD2d 409 [1990]). Present—Pigott, Jr., P.J., Green, Gorski, Martoche and Smith, JJ.

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

Appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Erie County (Eugene M. Fahey, J.), entered July 1, 2004 in a personal injury action. The order denied plaintiffs motion to bifurcate the trial.

It is hereby ordered that the order so appealed from be and the same hereby is unanimously affirmed without costs.

Memorandum: Supreme Court did not abuse its discretion in denying plaintiffs motion to bifurcate the trial. In opposing the motion, defendants established that “bifurcation would not ‘assist in a clarification or simplification of issues and a fair and more expeditious resolution of the action’ ” (Mazur v Mazur, 288 AD2d 945, 945-946 [2001], quoting 22 NYCRR 202.42 [a]). In addition, defendants established that the nature of plaintiffs injuries has “an important bearing on the issue of liability” (Martinez v Town of Babylon, 191 AD2d 483, 484 [1993] [internal quotation marks omitted]; see Echeverria v City of New York, 166 AD2d 409 [1990]). Present—Pigott, Jr., P.J., Green, Gorski, Martoche and Smith, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

16 A.D.3d 1163, 790 N.Y.S.2d 899, 2005 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 2787, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/iszkiewicz-v-town-of-lancaster-nyappdiv-2005.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack