Piccione v. Tri-main Development, L.P.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Piccione v. Tri-main Development, L.P.

5 A.D.3d 1086, 773 N.Y.S.2d 665, 2004 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3198

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

DecidedMarch 19, 2004

StatusPublished

Cited by5 cases

This text of 5 A.D.3d 1086 (Piccione v. Tri-main Development, L.P.) 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

Piccione v. Tri-main Development, L.P., 5 A.D.3d 1086, 773 N.Y.S.2d 665, 2004 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3198 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2004).

Pincite

Opinion

Appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Erie County (Donna M. Siwek, J.), entered July 29, 2003. The order denied defendant’s motion to bifurcate the trial.

It is hereby ordered that the order so appealed from be and the same hereby is unanimously reversed on the law without costs and the motion is granted.

[1087]*1087Memorandum: Supreme Court abused its discretion in denying defendant’s motion to bifurcate the trial. “ ‘As a general rule, issues of liability and damages in a negligence action are distinct and severable issues which should be tried separately’ ” (Loncz v Blagrove, 254 AD2d 735, 736 [1998], quoting Martinez v Town of Babylon, 191 AD2d 483, 484 [1993]). Here, plaintiff does not contend that her injuries have any bearing on the issue of liability (see Stevens v Dorsaneo, 267 AD2d 997 [1999]), and she has failed to establish that bifurcation would not “assist in a clarification or simplification of issues and a fair and more expeditious resolution of the action” (22 NYCRR 202.42 [a]; see Delano v Grazulewicz, 300 AD2d 1064, 1065 [2002]). Present—Pigott, Jr., P.J., Green, Hurlbutt, Scudder and Lawton, 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 (Donna M. Siwek, J.), entered July 29, 2003. The order denied defendant’s motion to bifurcate the trial.

It is hereby ordered that the order so appealed from be and the same hereby is unanimously reversed on the law without costs and the motion is granted.

[1087]*1087Memorandum: Supreme Court abused its discretion in denying defendant’s motion to bifurcate the trial. “ ‘As a general rule, issues of liability and damages in a negligence action are distinct and severable issues which should be tried separately’ ” (Loncz v Blagrove, 254 AD2d 735, 736 [1998], quoting Martinez v Town of Babylon, 191 AD2d 483, 484 [1993]). Here, plaintiff does not contend that her injuries have any bearing on the issue of liability (see Stevens v Dorsaneo, 267 AD2d 997 [1999]), and she has failed to establish that bifurcation would not “assist in a clarification or simplification of issues and a fair and more expeditious resolution of the action” (22 NYCRR 202.42 [a]; see Delano v Grazulewicz, 300 AD2d 1064, 1065 [2002]). Present—Pigott, Jr., P.J., Green, Hurlbutt, Scudder and Lawton, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

5 A.D.3d 1086, 773 N.Y.S.2d 665, 2004 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3198, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/piccione-v-tri-main-development-lp-nyappdiv-2004.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack