Limine to Preclude Evidence dated September 14, 2012.)
Unified or Bifurcated Trial
Plaintiff seeks "a unified trial of the issues of liability and damages, [purportedly] pursuant to
22 NYCRR 202.42" (see Motion for Unified Trial dated September ___, 2012.) Uniform
Civil Rules for the Supreme Court and the County Court §202.42 provides, "Judges are
encouraged to order a bifurcated trial of the issues of liability and damages in any action for
personal injury where it appears that bifurcation may assist in a clarification or simplification of
issues and a fair and more expeditious resolution of the action" (see 22 NYCRR
§202.42.)
"The party opposing bifurcation has the burden of showing that the nature of the injuries
necessarily assists the factfinder in making a determination with respect to the issue of liability."
(Galarza v Crown Container Co.,
Inc., 90 AD3d 703, 704 [2d Dept 2011] [quoting Carbocci v Lake Grove Entertainment, LLC, 64 AD3d 531, 532 (2d
Dept 2009)]; see also Barrera v Shaggs-Walsh, Inc., 279 AD2d 442, 442 [2d Dept
2001].) "Although trial courts are encouraged to conduct bifurcated trials in personal injury
cases, a unified trial should be conducted where the nature of the injuries has an important
bearing on the question of liability." (Perez v Madoff, 69 AD3d 821, 821-22 [2d Dept 2010]; Pasquaretto v Cohen, 37 AD3d
440, 440 [2d Dept 2007]; Barrera v Shaggs-Walsh, Inc., 279 AD2d at 442.)
On this motion, Plaintiff asserts the following bases for Defendants' liability: the law as
reflected in Pattern Jury Instruction 2:100, Lessor's Liability re Premises for Private Uses; the law
as reflected in Pattern Jury Instruction 2:105, Lessor's Liability re Premises Over Which Control