Marzan v. Levine

Defendant Denied Bifurcated Trial as Issues of Liability, Damages Intertwined

Thank you for sharing!

Your article was successfully shared with the contacts you provided.

on November 12, 2017, plaintiff was involved in an accident in or near a Manhattan intersection that caused him to sustain significant personal injuries. According to plaintiff, defendant, a pedestrian, stepped into the bicycle lane in which plaintiff was riding his bicycle, causing plaintiff to maneuver abruptly to avoid defendant and, in the process, strike nearby construction fencing. Defendant maintains that she was crossing a street in a crosswalk with a pedestrian crossing signal in her favor, and that plaintiff failed to yield the right of way to defendant and that plaintiff is solely (or at least significantly) to blame for his claimed injuries. Plaintiff commenced this action to recover damages for the personal injuries he allegedly sustained as a result of the accident. Defendant interposed an answer containing a number of affirmative defenses; seven of those defenses relate to plaintiff’s alleged comparative fault (see CPLR 1411).¹ Discovery was completed and a note of issue was filed. Defendant seeks to bifurcate the trial of this action, arguing that “[t]he facts underlying th[e] incident and those [underlying] the plaintiff’s alleged injuries are easily separable and are not so intertwined that they must be simultaneously presented to the trier of fact. In other words, the plaintiff’s injuries are not probative in determining how the accident occurred” (Dorman, affirmation in support, at 13). In support of her motion, defendant submits the pleadings, the bill of particulars, and the transcripts of the deposition testimony of the parties and defendant’s husband (who witnessed a portion of the events). Plaintiff opposes the motion to bifurcate. Plaintiff argues that by asserting comparative fault defenses, defendant has inextricably interwoven the issues of liability and damages, making a unified trial necessary (Gottfried, affirmation in opposition, at

Marzan v. Levine

Defendant Denied Bifurcated Trial as Issues of Liability, Damages Intertwined

Share with Email

Thank you for sharing!

Trending Stories

More From ALM

Subscribe to New York Law Journal