Caputo v. Joseph J. Sarcona Trucking Co., Inc.
| Decision Date | 16 May 1994 |
| Citation | 204 A.D.2d 507,611 N.Y.S.2d 655 |
| Parties | Vincenza CAPUTO, etc., et al., Appellants, v. JOSEPH J. SARCONA TRUCKING COMPANY, INC., et al., Respondents. |
| Court | New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division |
Theodore W. Bushlow, Brooklyn (Edward P. Dunphy, New York City, of counsel), for appellants.
Anthony J. DeMarco, Jr., P.C., Brooklyn (Marshall D. Sweetbaum, of counsel), for respondents.
Before LAWRENCE, J.P., and COPERTINO, ALTMAN and GOLDSTEIN, JJ.
MEMORANDUM BY THE COURT.
In a negligence action to recover damages for personal injuries, etc., the plaintiffs appeal from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Jackson, J.), dated June 11, 1992, which, upon a jury verdict, inter alia, dismissed the complaint on the merits after a trial on the issue of liability.
ORDERED that the judgment is affirmed, without costs or disbursements.
As a general rule, Judges are encouraged to conduct bifurcated trials in personal injury actions "where it appears that bifurcation may assist in a clarification or simplification of issues and a fair and more expeditious resolution of the action" (22 NYCRR 202.42[a]. In the present case, the plaintiffs have demonstrated no reason to depart from the general rule.
The trial court did not err in excluding the plaintiff Dominick J. Caputo from the courtroom during the liability phase of the trial. Although the physical condition of a plaintiff, in and of itself, is not enough to justify his involuntary exclusion from any phase of the trial (see, Carlisle v. County of Nassau, 64 A.D.2d 15, 408 N.Y.S.2d 114), when a plaintiff is both physically and mentally incapable and his mental incapacity prevents him from assisting counsel in any meaningful way, then the decision to exclude the plaintiff from the liability phase of a trial lies within the sound discretion of the trial court (see, Helminski v. Ayerst Labs., 766 F.2d 208, 215-216, cert. denied, 474 U.S. 981, 106 S.Ct. 386, 88 L.Ed.2d 339). Here, Caputo's presence in the courtroom would have impaired the jury's ability to objectively perform its task because he physically appeared to be in a state of unawareness (see, Helminski v. Ayerst Labs., supra; Monteleone v. Gestetner Corp., 140 Misc.2d 841, 531 N.Y.S.2d 857). Moreover, he had been judicially declared to be mentally incompetent prior to trial. Thus, the trial court did not improvidently exercise its discretion in excluding him from the liability phase of the trial.
We have reviewed the...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Cary by and through Cary v. Oneok, Inc.
...at birth was properly excluded because child could not assist in or understand proceedings); Caputo v. Joseph J. Sarcona Trucking Co., 204 A.D.2d 507, 611 N.Y.S.2d 655 (N.Y.S.Ct.1994) (trial court properly excluded a party that was mentally disabled and could not assist an express waiver or......
-
Green v. NORTH ARUNDEL HOSPITAL ASSOCIATION, INC., 88
...Province v. Center for Women's Health & Family Birth, 20 Cal.App.4th 1673, 25 Cal.Rptr.2d 667 (1993); Caputo v. Joseph J. Sarcona Trucking Co., 204 A.D.2d 507, 611 N.Y.S.2d 655 (1994); Reems v. St. Joseph's Hosp., 536 N.W.2d 666 (N.D. 1995); Wozniak v. New Britain General Hospital, 2001 WL ......
-
Farias-Alvarez v. Interim Healthcare of Greater N.Y.
...consideration of the facts (see Cruz v. St. Luke–Roosevelt Hosp. Ctr., 280 A.D.2d 317, 318, 722 N.Y.S.2d 490 ; Caputo v. Sarcona Trucking Co., 204 A.D.2d 507, 611 N.Y.S.2d 655 ).The plaintiff's remaining contentions are without merit. MASTRO, J.P., AUSTIN, MILLER and CONNOLLY, JJ., ...
-
Cruz v. St. Luke-Roosevelt Hosp. Ctr.
...and since their presence might well have impaired the jury's capacity for objective consideration of the facts (see, Caputo v Joseph J. Sarcona Trucking Co., 204 A.D.2d 507). We have considered plaintiffs' remaining contentions and find them ...
-
Trial Preparation
...at trial, and the prejudicial impact of the plaintiff’s physical or mental condition. See Caputo v. Joseph J. Sarcona Trucking Co., 204 A.D.2d 507, 611 N.Y.S.2d 655 (2nd Dept. 1994) and Monteleone v. Gestetner Corp. , 140 Misc.2d 841, 531 N.Y.S.2d 857 (N.Y.Sup.Ct. 1988). 32. Moreover, the A......