Opinion
March 8, 1993
Appeal from the Supreme Court, Suffolk County (Baisley, J.).
Ordered that the interlocutory judgment is affirmed, with costs.
There is no merit to the plaintiff's contention that the trial court improperly granted the defendants' motion for a bifurcated trial. As a general rule, issues of liability and damages in a negligence action are distinct and severable issues which should be tried and determined separately (see, CPLR 603; Armstrong v Adelman Automotive Parts Distrib. Corp., 176 A.D.2d 773; Polimeni v. Bubka, 161 A.D.2d 568). 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 (Armstrong v. Adelman Automotive Parts Distrib. Corp., supra, at 774; Polimeni v. Bubka, supra). There was no showing on the record submitted to this Court that the nature of plaintiff's injuries would be probative in determining how the incident occurred.
We have reviewed the plaintiff's remaining contentions and find them to be without merit. Rosenblatt, J.P., Lawrence, O'Brien and Copertino, JJ., concur.