Shea v. 5008 Broadway Associates

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Shea v. 5008 Broadway Associates

292 A.D.2d 292, 739 N.Y.S.2d 155, 2002 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3145

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

DecidedMarch 26, 2002

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 292 A.D.2d 292 (Shea v. 5008 Broadway Associates) 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

Shea v. 5008 Broadway Associates, 292 A.D.2d 292, 739 N.Y.S.2d 155, 2002 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3145 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2002).

Pincite

Opinion

Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Paula Omansky, J., and a jury), entered February 6, 2001, in an action for personal injuries sustained by plaintiff building resident when she was scalded by hot water while taking a shower, in favor of defendant building owner dismissing the complaint, unanimously reversed, on the law, the facts and in the exercise of discretion, without costs, and the matter remanded for a new trial.

The trial court improvidently exercised its discretion in bifurcating the trial of this negligence action on the issues of liability and damages. The nature and extent of plaintiffs burns were inextricably intertwined with the question of defendant’s liability, thus requiring medical proof to show the causal connection between the subject incident and the injury in order to establish liability (cf., CPLR 603, 4011; cf., Gogatz v New York City Tr. Auth., 288 AD2d 115).

Accordingly, the judgment is reversed and the matter is remanded to the Supreme Court, New York County, for a new trial. Inasmuch as the issues of plaintiffs failure to comply with CPLR 3116 (a) with regard to the deposition of the building superintendent and to disclose timely the identity of the notice witness can be cured by plaintiffs counsel prior to the commencement of the new trial, this Court need not reach the merits of these remaining issues on appeal. Concur — Nardelli, J.P., Mazzarelli, Buckley, Ellerin and Lerner, JJ.

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

Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Paula Omansky, J., and a jury), entered February 6, 2001, in an action for personal injuries sustained by plaintiff building resident when she was scalded by hot water while taking a shower, in favor of defendant building owner dismissing the complaint, unanimously reversed, on the law, the facts and in the exercise of discretion, without costs, and the matter remanded for a new trial.

The trial court improvidently exercised its discretion in bifurcating the trial of this negligence action on the issues of liability and damages. The nature and extent of plaintiffs burns were inextricably intertwined with the question of defendant’s liability, thus requiring medical proof to show the causal connection between the subject incident and the injury in order to establish liability (cf., CPLR 603, 4011; cf., Gogatz v New York City Tr. Auth., 288 AD2d 115).

Accordingly, the judgment is reversed and the matter is remanded to the Supreme Court, New York County, for a new trial. Inasmuch as the issues of plaintiffs failure to comply with CPLR 3116 (a) with regard to the deposition of the building superintendent and to disclose timely the identity of the notice witness can be cured by plaintiffs counsel prior to the commencement of the new trial, this Court need not reach the merits of these remaining issues on appeal. Concur — Nardelli, J.P., Mazzarelli, Buckley, Ellerin and Lerner, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

292 A.D.2d 292, 739 N.Y.S.2d 155, 2002 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3145, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/shea-v-5008-broadway-associates-nyappdiv-2002.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack