Wright v. N.Y.C. Transit Auth.

7 Citing cases

  1. Rueda v. Elmhurst Woodside, LLC

    187 A.D.3d 955 (N.Y. App. Div. 2020)   Cited 1 times   1 Legal Analyses

    Rather, as this Court has recently emphasized: "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" ( id. ). Accordingly, "[t]he decision whether to conduct a bifurcated trial rests within the discretion of the trial court, and should not be disturbed absent an improvident exercise of discretion" ( Wright v. New York City Tr. Auth., 142 A.D.3d 1163, 1163, 39 N.Y.S.3d 36 [internal quotation marks omitted]; seeCastro v. Malia Realty, LLC, 177 A.D.3d at 63, 109 N.Y.S.3d 314 ). Here, the plaintiff failed to demonstrate that evidence regarding the nature and extent of her injuries was probative of the question of liability (seeWright v. New York City Tr. Auth., 142 A.D.3d at 1164, 39 N.Y.S.3d 36 ; Parris v. New York City Tr. Auth., 140 A.D.3d 938, 939, 35 N.Y.S.3d 137 ; Patino v. County of Nassau, 124 A.D.3d 738, 740, 3 N.Y.S.3d 43 ; Fetterman v. Evans, 204 A.D.2d 888, 889–890, 612 N.Y.S.2d 479 ).

  2. Castro v. Malia Realty, LLC

    177 A.D.3d 58 (N.Y. App. Div. 2019)   Cited 11 times   1 Legal Analyses

    Although 22 NYCRR 202.42(a) encourages bifurcation where it may assist in a clarification or simplification of issues and a fair and more expeditious resolution of the action, it does not, on its face, contain as strong a presumption in favor of bifurcation as did 22 NYCRR former 699.14(a). Nevertheless, while this Court has repeatedly stated that the determination of whether to conduct a bifurcated trial rests within the discretion of the trial court and should not be overturned absent an improvident exercise of discretion (seeWright v. New York City Tr. Auth., 142 A.D.3d 1163, 39 N.Y.S.3d 36 ; Patino v. County of Nassau, 124 A.D.3d at 739, 3 N.Y.S.3d 43 ; Abrams v. Excellent Bus Serv., Inc., 91 A.D.3d 681, 682, 937 N.Y.S.2d 117 ), we have also continued to state that "[u]nified trials should only be held where the nature of the injuries has an important bearing on the issue of liability" ( Wright v. New York City Tr. Auth., 142 A.D.3d at 1163–1164, 39 N.Y.S.3d 36 [internal quotation marks omitted]; seeParris v. New York City Tr. Auth., 140 A.D.3d 938, 939, 35 N.Y.S.3d 137 ; Patino v. County of Nassau, 124 A.D.3d at 739, 3 N.Y.S.3d 43 ; Abrams v. Excellent Bus Serv., Inc., 91 A.D.3d at 682, 937 N.Y.S.2d 117 ; Galarza v. Crown Container Co., Inc., 90 A.D.3d 703, 703–704, 934 N.Y.S.2d 465 ; Winderman v. Brooklyn/McDonald Ave. Shoprite Assoc., Inc., 85 A.D.3d 1018, 1019, 925 N.Y.S.2d 637 ; Gee v. New York City Tr. Auth., 135 A.D.2d 778, 779, 522 N.Y.S.2d 890 ). In some cases, we have stated that a unified trial is "permitted" only when the nature of the injuries has an impor

  3. Nevins v. Six Flags Entm't Corp.

    2024 N.Y. Slip Op. 31976 (N.Y. Sup. Ct. 2024)

    An exception to this rule is that unified trials should be held where the nature of the injuries has an important bearing on the issue of liability" (Bennettiv. New York City Transit Authority, 22 N.Y.2d 742 [1968]; Marisova v. Brewster, 2024 Slip Op 00414 [2d Dept 2024]; Castro v. Malia LLC, 177A.D.3d 58 [2d Dept 2019]; Wright v. New York City Tr. Auth., 142 A.D.3d 1163 [2d Dept 2016]).

  4. Abate v. Wolf

    219 A.D.3d 1118 (N.Y. App. Div. 2023)   Cited 5 times

    However, a bifurcated trial is not warranted where " ‘the nature of the injuries has an important bearing on the issue of liability’ " ( Fox v. Frometa , 43 A.D.3d 1432, 1432, 841 N.Y.S.2d 914 [4th Dept. 2007] ), or where "bifurcation would not assist in clarification or simplification of the issues or a more expeditious resolution of the action" ( Zbock v. Gietz , 162 A.D.3d 1636, 1636, 79 N.Y.S.3d 441 [4th Dept. 2018] ). " ‘The decision whether to conduct a bifurcated trial rests within the discretion of the trial court’ " ( Wright v. New York City Tr. Auth. , 142 A.D.3d 1163, 1163, 39 N.Y.S.3d 36 [2d Dept. 2016] ; seeDeAngelis v. Martens Farms, LLC , 104 A.D.3d 1131, 1131, 960 N.Y.S.2d 669 [4th Dept. 2013] ). We conclude that the court did not abuse its discretion in denying the motion because trying the issues of liability and damages together will result in a "more expeditious resolution of the action" ( Blajszczak v. McGhee-Reynolds , 191 A.D.3d 1339, 1340, 141 N.Y.S.3d 210 [4th Dept. 2021] [internal quotation marks omitted]).

  5. Pittsford Canalside Props., LLC v. Pittsford Vill. Green

    154 A.D.3d 1303 (N.Y. App. Div. 2017)   Cited 8 times

    We reject defendants' further contention that the court erred in denying that part of their motion seeking the alternative relief of bifurcation of the trial. The determination " ‘whether to conduct a bifurcated trial rests within the discretion of the trial court’ " ( Wright v. New York City Tr. Auth., 142 A.D.3d 1163, 1163, 39 N.Y.S.3d 36 ), and we conclude that the court did not abuse its discretion (see CPLR 603 ; see also CPLR 4011 ). Finally, contrary to plaintiff's contention on its cross appeal, we conclude that the court properly denied plaintiff's motion to strike defendants' demand for a jury trial (see International Playtex v. CIS Leasing Corp., 115 A.D.2d 271, 272, 495 N.Y.S.2d 864 ).

  6. Nunez v. Nalco Co.

    2023 N.Y. Slip Op. 34473 (N.Y. Sup. Ct. 2023)

    The question of whether to bifurcate a trial is generally committed to the discretion of the trial court (Gogatz v New York City Tr. Auth., 288 A.D.2d 115 [2001]). Courts have held that "unified trials should only be held where the nature of the injuries has an important bearing on the issue of liability" (Wright v New York City Tr. Auth., 142 A.D.3d 1163, 1163 [2d Dept 2016] [internal citations and quotations omitted]; Castro v Malia Realty, LLC, 177 A.D.3d 58, 64-65 [2d Dept 2019]). It has been found that "the trial court improvidently exercised its discretion in bifurcating the trial" where "[t]he nature and extent of plaintiff's 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" (Shea v 5008 Broadway Assocs., 292 A.D.2d 292, 292 [1st Dept 2002]).

  7. Gomez-Martinez v. The N.Y.C. Transit Auth.

    2023 N.Y. Slip Op. 31074 (N.Y. Sup. Ct. 2023)

    Accordingly, plaintiff failed to demonstrate that evidence regarding the nature and extent of his injuries was probative of the question of liability (see Wright v New York City Transit Authority, 142 A.D.3d 1163 [2d Dept 2016]).