From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Costin v. Costin

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Mar 11, 1996
225 A.D.2d 575 (N.Y. App. Div. 1996)

Opinion

March 11, 1996

Appeal from the Supreme Court, Suffolk County (Fierro, J.).


Ordered that the order is reversed insofar as appealed from, with costs, and the branch of the motion which was for a bifurcated trial is denied.

Bifurcation of matrimonial actions is generally disfavored because it raises the possibilities of economic coercion, two protracted proceedings, or delay in resolving the financial issues (Campbell v Campbell, 171 A.D.2d 720; Fiorella v Fiorella, 132 A.D.2d 643). Absent concrete reasons for bifurcation, such a motion should be denied (see, Campbell v Campbell, supra, at 721). Here, the only reason the plaintiff offers is that the grounds phase would progress quickly and the equitable distribution phase would be more complicated. Such a reason does not warrant bifurcation and could well lead to a delay in resolving the financial issues. Bracken, J.P., Balletta, Thompson and Hart, JJ., concur.


Summaries of

Costin v. Costin

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Mar 11, 1996
225 A.D.2d 575 (N.Y. App. Div. 1996)
Case details for

Costin v. Costin

Case Details

Full title:JOHN COSTIN, Respondent, v. DOLORES COSTIN, Appellant

Court:Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department

Date published: Mar 11, 1996

Citations

225 A.D.2d 575 (N.Y. App. Div. 1996)
638 N.Y.S.2d 786

Citing Cases

Hannigan v. Hannigan

That conclusion notwithstanding, this Court recognizes that in certain instances bifurcation of the issues…

Lazarus v. Lazarus

Between these two judgments, all of the properly presented legal and factual disputes between the parties…