Fetterman v. Evans
| Decision Date | 19 May 1994 |
| Parties | Thomas FETTERMAN, Appellant, v. Kim M. EVANS, Doing Business as Airport Inn Restaurant, Respondent. |
| Court | New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division |
Ronald R. Benjamin, Binghamton, for appellant.
Smyk, Smyk & Fahrenz (Theodore J. Mlynarski Jr., of counsel), Binghamton, for respondent.
Before MIKOLL, J.P., and MERCURE, CREW, WEISS and YESAWICH, JJ.
Appeal from an order and judgment of the Supreme Court (Rose, J.), entered March 12, 1993 in Broome County, which dismissed plaintiff's complaint.
This action arises out of injuries allegedly sustained by plaintiff on April 9, 1991 while he was visiting defendant's bar and restaurant. On that date, a fight apparently broke out between some of the tavern's patrons, during the course of which plaintiff allegedly was struck by one of the participants in the altercation. Plaintiff thereafter commenced this action against defendant alleging, inter alia, that defendant was negligent in failing to employ a "bouncer" and/or bar those individuals involved in the altercation from her establishment. Defendant answered, discovery ensued and the matter proceeded to trial on March 1, 1993. On that date, a jury was selected and defendant made an oral motion to limit certain testimony offered by plaintiff's expert, which Supreme Court apparently granted. Supreme Court also determined, sua sponte, that the trial would be bifurcated, with the jury initially deciding only the issue of liability. The following day, plaintiff moved by order to show cause for a mistrial, selection of a new jury and reconsideration of Supreme Court's prior rulings. Supreme Court denied plaintiff's application, at which point counsel for plaintiff requested that Supreme Court dismiss the case so that plaintiff could immediately appeal the adverse rulings. When Supreme Court informed plaintiff that such a dismissal would be with prejudice based upon plaintiff's failure to proceed with the trial, plaintiff reiterated his refusal to go forward. Supreme Court then dismissed the case with prejudice and this appeal by plaintiff followed.
We affirm. Assuming, without deciding, that plaintiff has standing to bring this appeal, we are of the view that Supreme Court did not abuse its discretion in ordering that the trial be bifurcated. We begin with the proposition that the decision to order a bifurcated trial rests within the sound discretion of the trial court (see, CPLR 603, 4011). "As a general rule, issues of liability and damages in a negligence action are distinct and severable issues which should be tried and determined separately * * * " (Martinez v. Town of Babylon, 191 A.D.2d 483, 484, 594 N.Y.S.2d 357 [citations omitted]; see, Armstrong v. Adelman Automotive Parts Distrib. Corp., 176 A.D.2d 773, 575 N.Y.S.2d 101; see also, 22 NYCRR 202.42[a] []. "Although an exception to this rule is made where the nature of the injuries has an important bearing on the question of liability, [in which case] medical proof is permitted to show the causal connection between the accident and the injury in order to establish liability * * * " (Parmar v. Skinner, 154 A.D.2d 444, 445, 546 N.Y.S.2d 16 [citations omitted]; see, e.g., Polimeni v. Bubka, 161 A.D.2d 568, 569, 555 N.Y.S.2d...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Rueda v. Elmhurst Woodside, LLC
...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 ). Under the circumstances, we decline to disturb the Supreme Court's determination to deny the plaintiff's motion for......
-
In re Breast Implant Cases, 92 CV 7821 (S.D.N.Y.)
...federal interpretation of Rule 42(b), permits courts sua sponte to sever issues for trial. See, e.g., Fetterman v. Evans, 612 N.Y.S.2d 479, 480, 204 A.D.2d 888 (Sup.Ct.3d Dep't 1994); Marine Midland Bank, N.A. v. Cafferty, 571 N.Y.S.2d 628, 631, 174 A.D.2d 932, 935 (Sup.Ct.3d Dep't The brea......
-
Kasten, Matter of
...bifurcation of the issues to be tried (see, CPLR 603, 4011; Koskey v. Chubb Corp., 233 A.D.2d 299, 649 N.Y.S.2d 807; Fetterman v. Evans, 204 A.D.2d 888, 612 N.Y.S.2d 479). The appellants' remaining contentions are without ...
-
DeAngelis v. Martens Farms, LLC
...776;Armstrong v. Adelman Automotive Parts Distrib. Corp., 176 A.D.2d 773, 773–774, 575 N.Y.S.2d 101;see also Fetterman v. Evans, 204 A.D.2d 888, 889–890, 612 N.Y.S.2d 479). It is hereby ORDERED that the order so appealed from is unanimously affirmed without costs.SCUDDER, P.J., CENTRA, CARN......
-
Judicial conduct
...personal injury case to bifurcate trial of issues of liability and damages, even though the issues are intertwined. Fetterman v. Evans , 204 A.D.2d 888, 612 N.Y.S.2d 479 (3d Dept. 1994). Most courts use their discretionary power sparingly, allowing attorneys who appear before them to chart ......
-
Judicial conduct
...injury case to bifurcate the trial into issues of liability and damages, even though the issues are intertwined. Fetterman v. Evans , 204 A.D.2d 888, 612 N.Y.S.2d 479 (3d Dept. 1994). Similarly, it was a proper use of the court’s discretion to sever the issue of one defendant’s negligence f......
-
Judicial conduct
...personal injury case to bifurcate trial of issues of liability and damages, even though the issues are intertwined. Fetterman v. Evans , 204 A.D.2d 888, 612 N.Y.S.2d 479 (3d Dept. 1994). Similarly, it was a proper use of the court’s discretion to sever the issue of one defendant’s negligenc......
-
Judicial conduct
...personal injury case to bifurcate trial of issues of liability and damages, even though the issues are intertwined. Fetterman v. Evans , 204 A.D.2d 888, 612 N.Y.S.2d 479 (3d Dept. 1994). Similarly, it was a proper use of the court’s discretion to sever the issue of one defendant’s negligenc......