Opinion ID: 1059551
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 4

Heading: Bifurcation of Civil Trial

Text: After the trial court sustained Crown's demurrer to the claims of assault and battery and intentional infliction of emotional distress, Crown filed a motion to bifurcate the trial into liability and damages phases. Crown contended that bifurcation of the trial would be in the interests of judicial economy ... and would streamline the proceeding. The trial court's order granting Crown's motion was endorsed by Majorana's counsel as objected to for the reasons noted in open court. Majorana failed to provide a transcript or authorized statement of fact summarizing the argument made against Crown's motion. In the absence of a record reflecting the reason for the objection made in the trial court, we are unable to discern whether the objection raised on appeal was properly preserved below. Accordingly, we will not consider Majorana's assignment of error to the trial court's granting of the motion to bifurcate the trial. Rule 5:25.