Opinion
1551 CA 17–01144
12-22-2017
Jabr A. ALMUGANAHI, Plaintiff–Appellant, v. Candido GONZALEZ, Defendant–Respondent.
CELLINO & BARNES, P.C., BUFFALO (GREGORY V. PAJAK OF COUNSEL), FOR PLAINTIFF–APPELLANT. BOUVIER LAW, LLP, BUFFALO (NORMAN E.S. GREENE OF COUNSEL), FOR DEFENDANT–RESPONDENT.
CELLINO & BARNES, P.C., BUFFALO (GREGORY V. PAJAK OF COUNSEL), FOR PLAINTIFF–APPELLANT.
BOUVIER LAW, LLP, BUFFALO (NORMAN E.S. GREENE OF COUNSEL), FOR DEFENDANT–RESPONDENT.
PRESENT: WHALEN, P.J., CENTRA, PERADOTTO, LINDLEY, AND WINSLOW, JJ.
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
Memorandum:Plaintiff commenced this negligence action seeking damages for injuries that he allegedly sustained when he was riding his bicycle and was involved in an accident with a vehicle operated by defendant. Supreme Court did not abuse its discretion in granting defendant's motion to bifurcate the trial. "As a general rule, issues of liability and damages in a negligence action are distinct and severable issues which should be tried separately" ( Turnmire v. Concrete Applied Tech. Corp., 56 A.D.3d 1125, 1128, 867 N.Y.S.2d 303 [4th Dept. 2008] [internal quotation marks omitted] ). Contrary to plaintiff's contention, he failed to establish that bifurcation would not "assist in a clarification or simplification of issues and a fair and more expeditious resolution of the action" ( 22 NYCRR 202.42 [a]; see Piccione v. Tri-Main Dev., 5 A.D.3d 1086, 1087, 773 N.Y.S.2d 665 [4th Dept. 2004] ; cf. Mazur v. Mazur, 288 A.D.2d 945, 945–946, 732 N.Y.S.2d 204 [4th Dept. 2001] ).
It is hereby ORDERED that the order so appealed from is unanimously affirmed without costs.