Cutsogeorge v. Hertz Corp.

In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, the plaintiff appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Lerner, J.), dated August 21, 1996, which denied his motion for a unified trial on the issues of liability and damages. Ordered that the order is affirmed, with one bill of costs to the respondents appearing separately and filing separate briefs. As a general rule, questions of liability and damages in a negligence action represent distinct and severable issues which should be tried and determined separately (see, CPLR 603; Rothbard v Woolworth Co., 233 AD2d 434; Martinez v Town of Babylon, 191 AD2d 483; Armstrong v Adelman Automotive Parts Distrib. Corp., 176 AD2d 773; see also, 22 NYCRR 202.42). It is only where the nature of the injuries sustained has an important bearing on the issue of liability that a joint trial on both issues is permitted (see, Dulin v Maher, 200 AD2d 707; Amato v Hudson County Montessori School, 185 AD2d 803). Here, the plaintiff failed to show a need to introduce evidence of the injuries he suffered in order to establish liability. Accordingly, the Supreme Court properly denied his application [541] for a unified trial (see, Dulin v Maher, supra). Bracken, J. P., O’Brien, Santucci, Friedmann and Goldstein, JJ., concur.