Opinion
March 11, 1991
Appeal from the Supreme Court, Westchester County (Facelle, J.).
Ordered that the order is reversed insofar as appealed from, as a matter of discretion, with costs, and the cross motion is denied.
It is well settled that bifurcation is generally disfavored in matrimonial actions, inasmuch as it raises the possibility of economic coercion and may necessitate that two protracted trials be held instead of one (see, Fiorella v Fiorella, 132 A.D.2d 643; see generally, Fridman v Fridman, 120 A.D.2d 491; Klepper v Klepper, 120 A.D.2d 154). The defendant contends that the Supreme Court properly granted his cross motion for bifurcation in view of the plaintiff's alleged pattern of dilatory conduct in prosecuting the action. However, the record fails to substantiate this assertion, as it contains no evidence demonstrating that the plaintiff has thwarted discovery proceedings. Moreover, there is no evidence to establish that the defendant has actively pursued discovery with regard to his counterclaim for divorce and equitable distribution (cf., Wald v Wald, 119 A.D.2d 569). Absent such a concrete showing that bifurcation is warranted in this case, the defendant's cross motion should have been denied. Thompson, J.P., Kunzeman, Sullivan and Rosenblatt, JJ., concur.