DECISION & ORDER On March 19, 2014, a motor vehicle accident took place at the intersection of two St. Lawrence County (“County”) roads between: (1) an automobile operated by Plaintiff Donna N. Wells (“Donna”), in which Plaintiff James A. Wells (“James”) was a front seat passenger; and, (2) a second vehicle owned and operated by Defendant Matthew D. Bell (“Bell”). Bell allegedly failed to stop or yield at a stop sign at the intersection; drove into the intersection of County Routes 14 and 31; and, struck the driver’s side door of Wells’ vehicle at a high rate of speed. See Verified Complaint at
5-10. On June 9, 2014, Plaintiffs served a Notice of Claim on the County. Id. at 4. The County conducted a hearing under General Municipal Law §50-h of both Plaintiffs on November 5, 2014. Id. On February 27, 2015, Plaintiffs commenced this personal injury action against the County and Bell, alleging both Donna and James sustained serious injuries [see Insurance Law §5102 [d]) in the accident as a result of the negligence and wrongful conduct of both Defendants. Defendants served their answers in March, 2015. In their Note of Issue filed January 28, 2019, Plaintiffs claimed a trial preference under N.Y. C.P.L.R. 3403(a) (4). The Note of Issue states: “Plaintiff James Wells is over 70 years of age and in deteriorating health.” The Note of Issue demanded a non-jury trial of all issues. On January 28, 2019 (Bell) and February 8, 2019 (County), Defendants filed separate demands for jury trial of all issues. In recognition of the statutory preference, on February 14, 2019, the Court issued an Order Setting Day Certain for Jury Trial commencing September 23, 2019. In subsequent conversations between the Court and counsel, all counsel assured the Court that the full trial of this action — both liability and damages — would be completed in two weeks (on or before October 4, 2019). Further, after counsel for the County by letter dated February 20, 2019, requested that this trial be adjourned because he had been previously ordered by the Court of Claims to commence a trial on September 23, 2019, this Court contacted the assigned Court of Claims Judge (Milano, J.), who graciously agreed to re-schedule the Court of Claims trial so as to accommodate the needed jury trial preference in this action. By Notice of Motion served May 24, 2019, Defendant County moved for summary judgment on the issue of liability, which this Court denied on July 17, 2019, by decision on the stenographic record.1 On or about July 23, 2019, the County moved by Order to Show Cause for an order: (1) bifurcating the trial between liability and damages; and (2) for damages to be tried thereafter, with a second jury. Plaintiffs oppose the County’s motion.2 For the reasons set forth below, and in the exercise of its discretion, the Court denies the County’s motion in its entirety. CONTENTIONS OF THE PARTIES Both the County and Plaintiffs acknowledge that the decision as to whether to bifurcate is within this Court’s sound discretion. Undated Affirmation of Mark J. Schulte, Esq. (“Schulte aff.”), at 3; see Affirmation of Michelle Rudderow in Opposition dated July 30, 2019 (“Rudderow aff.”), at 3. In support of its motion to bifurcate, the County argues that proof of both liability and damages proof will be extensive, and “there is a fair likelihood that a unified trial will extend into a third week.” Schulte aff. at 12. Counsel for the County states that three (3) party and fifteen (15) non-party witnesses have been deposed, and that resolution of liability issues may require testimony from “two, and perhaps, three expert engineers [].” Id. at 11. The County argues bifurcation is appropriate both because Plaintiffs’ injuries are not “inextricably intertwined” with issues of liability, and bifurcation “is in the best interests of all the parties and would promote judicial economy.” Id. at
