Opinion
October 15, 1991
Appeal from the Supreme Court, Kings County (Huttner, J.).
Ordered that the judgment is affirmed, with costs.
We reject the plaintiff's contention that the trial court erred in granting the defendant's motion for a bifurcated trial. As a general rule, issues of liability and damages in a negligence action represent distinct and severable issues which should be tried and determined separately (see, CPLR 603; Polimeni v Bubka, 161 A.D.2d 568; Parmar v. Skinner, 154 A.D.2d 444). In order for the rule not to apply, the party opposing bifurcation must show that the nature of the injuries "has an important bearing" on the issue of liability (see, Polimeni v. Bubka, supra; Parmar v. Skinner, supra). Upon our review of the record we conclude that the evidence regarding the nature of the plaintiff's injuries was not probative in determining how the incident occurred.
With respect to the plaintiff's contention that the trial court erred in dismissing his claim for breach of express warranty at the close of the plaintiff's proof, any error was harmless in light of the jury's finding that the defendant had not installed the alleged defective automobile part in the plaintiff's automobile.
We have considered the plaintiff's remaining contentions and find them to be either unpreserved for appellate review or without merit (see, LaMotta v. City of New York, 130 A.D.2d 627; Orellano v. Samples Tire Equip. Supply Corp., 110 A.D.2d 757). Mangano, P.J., Sullivan, Rosenblatt and O'Brien, JJ., concur.