Mason v. Moore
| Decision Date | 18 April 1996 |
| Parties | John MASON et al., Individually and as Parents and Guardians of John Mason Jr., an Infant, Respondents, v. Francis E. MOORE Jr. et al., Appellants. |
| Court | New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division |
Levene, Gouldin & Thompson (David L. Niefer, of counsel), Binghamton, for Francis E. Moore Jr. and another, appellants.
Smyk, Smyk & Fahrenz (Stephen D. Smyk, of counsel), Binghamton, for Lady of Lourdes Memorial Hospital Inc., appellant.
Featherstonhaugh, Conway, Wiley, Clyne, LLP (Denis R. Hurley, of counsel), Albany, for respondents.
Before MIKOLL, J.P., and MERCURE, CREW, WHITE and YESAWICH, JJ.
Appeal from an order of the Supreme Court (Monserrate, J.), entered May 25, 1995 in Broome County, which denied defendants' motion for, inter alia, a bifurcated trial.
This medical malpractice action arises from the treatment rendered by defendants to plaintiff Julie Mason and her son, John Mason Jr., during the course of labor and delivery of the child on May 27, 1990, as well as the treatment administered to him after his birth. Plaintiffs allege that because of defendants' negligent treatment, their son sustained brain damage as a result of asphyxia during delivery, resulting in spastic quadriplegia with severe developmental delays and physical disability. Prior to commencement of the trial of this matter, defendants brought a motion requesting that the liability and damages portions of the trial be bifurcated for the purpose of avoiding prejudice to defendants from any sympathy the jurors might feel for plaintiffs' child. For the same reason, defendants also sought to exclude plaintiffs' son from the courtroom during the liability portion of the trial. Supreme Court denied the motion in its entirety and this appeal by defendants ensued.
Bifurcation of the trial of a personal injury action is appropriate where the questions of liability and damages are discrete and such procedure will result in a shorter, simpler, less expensive trial (see, Stanford v. Resler, 206 A.D.2d 468, 615 N.Y.S.2d 46; Fetterman v. Evans, 204 A.D.2d 888, 889, 612 N.Y.S.2d 479). Conversely, bifurcation is not appropriate where the nature of the injuries has an important bearing on the question of liability (see, Amato v. Hudson Country Montessori School, 185 A.D.2d 803, 804, 586 N.Y.S.2d 635; Parmar v. Skinner, 154 A.D.2d 444, 445, 546 N.Y.S.2d 16).
Here, plaintiffs have shown that it will be necessary for their medical experts to analyze the infant's injuries and symptoms to support their opinion that asphyxia caused...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Cary by and through Cary v. Oneok, Inc.
...hold that absent an overwhelming reason to the contrary, a party has a right to attend the trial of his lawsuit. Mason v. Moore, 226 A.D.2d 993, 641 N.Y.S.2d 195 (N.Y.S.Ct.1996) (injured infant was entitled to be present during trial absent ¶11 It appears to be universally settled that a pa......
-
Green v. NORTH ARUNDEL HOSPITAL ASSOCIATION, INC., 88
...proceedings should be permitted ... to attend the trial must rest in the sound discretion of the trial court ..."); Mason v. Moore, 226 A.D.2d 993, 641 N.Y.S.2d 195 (1996); Caputo v. Joseph J. Sarcona Trucking Co., 204 A.D.2d 507, 611 N.Y.S.2d 655 (1994); Matter of Radjpaul v. Patton, 145 A......
-
Kesterson v. Jarrett
...that a severely burned young child could not be excluded from trial based on his physical appearance); Mason v. Moore, 226 A.D.2d 993, 993, 641 N.Y.S.2d 195 (N.Y.App.Div.1996) (holding that a party who “sustained brain damage as a result of asphyxia during delivery, resulting in severe quad......
-
Onaka v. Onaka
...due process and a fair trial permit a party to be present in the courtroom absent extreme conditions[.]"); Mason v. Moore, 226 A.D.2d 993, 994, 641 N.Y.S.2d 195, 197 (N.Y.A.D.1996) ("It is axiomatic that, absent an express waiver or unusual circumstances, a party to a civil action is entitl......
-
Trial Preparation
...to be unsightly from injuries which he was trying to prove the defendant negligently caused. 33. More recently, in Mason v. Moore , 226 A.D.2d 993, 641 N.Y.S.2d 195 (3rd Dept. 1996), the Appellate Division, Third Department has held that “it is axiomatic, that absent an express waiver or un......