Opinion
May 27, 1988
Appeal from the Supreme Court, Oneida County, Tenney, J.
Present — Dillon, P.J., Doerr, Boomer, Lawton and Davis, JJ.
Order unanimously modified on the law and as modified affirmed without costs, in accordance with the following memorandum: The court properly denied plaintiffs' motion for a change of venue. Plaintiffs failed to carry their burden of proof that an impartial jury cannot be impaneled in Oneida County. Special Term did, however, abuse its discretion by ordering, sua sponte, a bifurcated trial. In the circumstances presented here, the plaintiffs' proof on the issues of liability and damages is so intertwined that judicial economy would be best served by allowing the two issues to be tried together (see, Schwartz v Binder, 91 A.D.2d 660).