Perez v. Millard Fillmore Hospital

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Perez v. Millard Fillmore Hospital

263 A.D.2d 957, 704 N.Y.S.2d 525, 1999 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 7921

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

DecidedJuly 9, 1999

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 263 A.D.2d 957 (Perez v. Millard Fillmore Hospital) 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

Perez v. Millard Fillmore Hospital, 263 A.D.2d 957, 704 N.Y.S.2d 525, 1999 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 7921 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1999).

Pincite

Opinion

—Order unanimously reversed on the law with costs and motion granted. Memorandum: In this action seeking to recover damages for personal injuries allegedly sustained by plaintiff when she fell on defendant’s premises, Supreme Court abused its discretion in denying plaintiffs motion to bifurcate the trial (see, Loncz v Blagrove, 254 AD2d 735). “ As a general rule, issues of liability and damages in a negligence action are distinct and severable issues which should be tried and determined separately’ ” (Loncz v Blagrove, supra, at 736, quoting Martinez v Town of Babylon, 191 AD2d 483, 484; see, 22 NYCRR 202.42 [a]). Defendant failed to establish the need to depart from that general rule (see, Loncz v Blagrove, supra; Johnson v City of New York, 191 AD2d 216). (Appeal from Order of Supreme Court, Erie County, Mintz, J. — Bifurcate Trial.) Present — Denman, P. J., Lawton, Hurlbutt, Scudder and Balio, JJ.

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

—Order unanimously reversed on the law with costs and motion granted. Memorandum: In this action seeking to recover damages for personal injuries allegedly sustained by plaintiff when she fell on defendant’s premises, Supreme Court abused its discretion in denying plaintiffs motion to bifurcate the trial (see, Loncz v Blagrove, 254 AD2d 735). “ As a general rule, issues of liability and damages in a negligence action are distinct and severable issues which should be tried and determined separately’ ” (Loncz v Blagrove, supra, at 736, quoting Martinez v Town of Babylon, 191 AD2d 483, 484; see, 22 NYCRR 202.42 [a]). Defendant failed to establish the need to depart from that general rule (see, Loncz v Blagrove, supra; Johnson v City of New York, 191 AD2d 216). (Appeal from Order of Supreme Court, Erie County, Mintz, J. — Bifurcate Trial.) Present — Denman, P. J., Lawton, Hurlbutt, Scudder and Balio, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

263 A.D.2d 957, 704 N.Y.S.2d 525, 1999 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 7921, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/perez-v-millard-fillmore-hospital-nyappdiv-1999.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack