Sommer v. Pierre

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Sommer v. Pierre

51 A.D.3d 464, 856 N.Y.S.2d 619

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

DecidedMay 6, 2008

StatusPublished

Cited by3 cases

This text of 51 A.D.3d 464 (Sommer v. Pierre) 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

Sommer v. Pierre, 51 A.D.3d 464, 856 N.Y.S.2d 619 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2008).

Pincite

Opinion

Order, Supreme Court, [465]*465New York County (Deborah A. Kaplan, J.), entered January 17, 2008, which, to the extent appealed from, denied defendants’ motion to bifurcate the trial on issues of liability and damages, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

Bifurcation is appropriate in complicated cases of liability and damages where such clarification or simplification will assist in reaching a fair and more expeditious resolution of the issues (22 NYCRR 202.42 [a]; Mazur v Mazur, 288 AD2d 945 [2001]). A ruling on such a request is a matter of discretion as to which the trial court should be afforded great deference (Johnson v Hudson Riv. Constr. Co., Inc., 13 AD3d 864 [2004]). In this case, fairness and convenience weigh in favor of a unified trial, which will serve to prevent a verdict based on undue sympathy for either party. Concur—Tom, J.P., Andrias, Nardelli and Williams, JJ.

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

Order, Supreme Court, [465]*465New York County (Deborah A. Kaplan, J.), entered January 17, 2008, which, to the extent appealed from, denied defendants’ motion to bifurcate the trial on issues of liability and damages, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

Bifurcation is appropriate in complicated cases of liability and damages where such clarification or simplification will assist in reaching a fair and more expeditious resolution of the issues (22 NYCRR 202.42 [a]; Mazur v Mazur, 288 AD2d 945 [2001]). A ruling on such a request is a matter of discretion as to which the trial court should be afforded great deference (Johnson v Hudson Riv. Constr. Co., Inc., 13 AD3d 864 [2004]). In this case, fairness and convenience weigh in favor of a unified trial, which will serve to prevent a verdict based on undue sympathy for either party. Concur—Tom, J.P., Andrias, Nardelli and Williams, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

51 A.D.3d 464, 856 N.Y.S.2d 619, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/sommer-v-pierre-nyappdiv-2008.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack