Visco v. Riverhead Cent. Sch. Dist.

Opinion

Visco v Riverhead Cent. Sch. Dist.

2026 NY Slip Op 05347

September 16, 2026

Appellate Division, Second Department

Published by New York State Law Reporting Bureau pursuant to Judiciary Law § 431.

This decision is uncorrected and subject to revision before publication in the Official Reports.

Nikolas I. Visco et al., appellants,

v

Riverhead Central School District, respondent.

Supreme Court of the State of New York, Appellate Division, Second Judicial Department

Decided on September 16, 2026

2025-05314, (Index No. 21483/15)

Hector D. Lasalle, P.J.

Linda Christopher

Carl J. Landicino

James P. McCormack, JJ.

Siben & Siben, LLP, Bay Shore, NY (Alan G. Faber and John A. Meringolo of counsel), for appellants.

Ahmuty, Demers & McManus, Albertson, NY (Daniel Glattman of counsel), for respondent.

[*1]

DECISION & ORDER

In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, etc., the plaintiffs appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Suffolk County (Thomas F. Whelan, J.), dated April 23, 2025. The order denied the plaintiffs' motion for a unified trial on the issues of liability and damages.

ORDERED that the order is affirmed, with costs.

On August 17, 2015, the plaintiff Nikolas I. Visco (hereinafter the injured plaintiff), then a varsity football player at the defendant high school, allegedly sustained personal injuries when he suffered heat stroke during a football practice. The plaintiffs commenced this action against the defendant, alleging, inter alia, that the defendant conducted the football practice in a negligent manner.

The plaintiffs moved for a unified trial on the issues of liability and damages, contending that the injured plaintiff's injuries are "intrinsically intertwined" with the issue of the defendant's liability. The defendant opposed the motion. In an order dated April 23, 2025, the Supreme Court denied the plaintiffs' motion. The plaintiffs appeal.

"Judges are encouraged to direct a bifurcated trial of the issues of liability and damages in any action to recover damages for personal injuries 'where it appears that bifurcation may assist in a clarification or simplification of issues and a fair and more expeditious resolution of the action'" (Marisova v Collins-Brewster, 223 AD3d 891, 892, quoting 22 NYCRR 202.42[a]; see Rueda v Elmhurst Woodside, LLC, 187 AD3d 955, 956; Castro v Malia Realty, LLC, 177 AD3d 58, 63). "Although bifurcation is encouraged in appropriate settings, bifurcation is not an absolute given and it is the responsibility of the trial judge to exercise discretion in determining whether bifurcation is appropriate in light of all relevant facts and circumstances presented by the individual cases" (Marisova v Collins-Brewster, 223 AD3d at 892 [internal quotation marks omitted]; see Rueda v Elmhurst Woodside, LLC, 187 AD3d at 956; Castro v Malia Realty, LLC, 177 AD3d at 66). "A unified trial is appropriate where the nature of the plaintiff's injuries has an important bearing on the [*2]issue of liability" (Marisova v Collins-Brewster, 223 AD3d at 892 [internal quotation marks omitted]; see Castro v Malia Realty, LLC, 177 AD3d at 63-64). The "party opposing bifurcation has the burden of showing that the nature of the injuries necessarily assists the factfinder in making a determination with respect to the issue of liability" (Castro v Malia Realty, LLC, 177 AD3d at 64 [internal quotation marks omitted]; see Parris v New York City Tr. Auth., 140 AD3d 938, 939).

Here, the Supreme Court properly denied the plaintiffs' motion for a unified trial on the issues of liability and damages. The plaintiffs failed to establish that the injured plaintiff's injuries were inextricably intertwined with the question of liability or that the nature of his injuries was probative in determining how the incident occurred (see Galarza v Crown Container Co., Inc., 90 AD3d 703, 704; cf. Mujica v Nassau County Corr. Facility, 231 AD3d 1046, 1048; Carbocci v Lake Grove Entertainment, LLC, 64 AD3d 531, 532). Furthermore, with respect to the expert affidavit submitted in support of the plaintiffs' motion, the plaintiffs failed to demonstrate that their "expert's theory could not adequately be proven at the liability phase of a bifurcated trial" or that their expert, who was not a medical doctor and did not treat the injured plaintiff, would have to testify at both phases of a bifurcated trial (Patino v County of Nassau, 124 AD3d 738, 740).

The plaintiffs' remaining contentions are without merit.

LASALLE, P.J., CHRISTOPHER, LANDICINO and MCCORMACK, JJ., concur.

ENTER:

Darrell M. Joseph

Clerk of the Court