Schwartz v. Binder

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Schwartz v. Binder

91 A.D.2d 660, 457 N.Y.S.2d 109, 1982 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 19526

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

DecidedDecember 20, 1982

StatusPublished

Cited by20 cases

This text of 91 A.D.2d 660 (Schwartz v. Binder) 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

Schwartz v. Binder, 91 A.D.2d 660, 457 N.Y.S.2d 109, 1982 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 19526 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1982).

Pincite

Opinion

— In a negligence action to recover damages for personal injuries, etc., plaintiffs appeal from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Rodell, J.), entered November 20, 1980, in favor of defendant, upon a jury verdict, after a trial limited to the issue of liability. Judgment reversed, as a matter of discretion, and new trial granted on the combined issues of liability and damages, with costs to abide the event. Separate trials on the issues of liability and damage should not be held where the nature of the injuries has an important bearing on the issue of liability (see Culley v City of New York, 25 AD2d 519). In order to establish liability under the circumstances of this case, it was necessary for the plaintiffs to offer medical evidence of the injuries and of the type of force necessary to cause those injuries (see Williams v Adams, 46 AD2d 952). Evidence of plaintiff Joan Schwartz’ amnesia was necessary for the additional purpose of allowing the jury to consider whether plaintiffs should be held to a lesser degree of proof (see Schechter v Klanfer, 28 NY2d 228). Accordingly, a single trial on both the liability and damage issues should be held. Mangano, J. P., Weinstein, Brown and Niehoff, JJ., concur.

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

— In a negligence action to recover damages for personal injuries, etc., plaintiffs appeal from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Rodell, J.), entered November 20, 1980, in favor of defendant, upon a jury verdict, after a trial limited to the issue of liability. Judgment reversed, as a matter of discretion, and new trial granted on the combined issues of liability and damages, with costs to abide the event. Separate trials on the issues of liability and damage should not be held where the nature of the injuries has an important bearing on the issue of liability (see Culley v City of New York, 25 AD2d 519). In order to establish liability under the circumstances of this case, it was necessary for the plaintiffs to offer medical evidence of the injuries and of the type of force necessary to cause those injuries (see Williams v Adams, 46 AD2d 952). Evidence of plaintiff Joan Schwartz’ amnesia was necessary for the additional purpose of allowing the jury to consider whether plaintiffs should be held to a lesser degree of proof (see Schechter v Klanfer, 28 NY2d 228). Accordingly, a single trial on both the liability and damage issues should be held. Mangano, J. P., Weinstein, Brown and Niehoff, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

91 A.D.2d 660, 457 N.Y.S.2d 109, 1982 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 19526, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/schwartz-v-binder-nyappdiv-1982.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack