Court Opinion

ID: 9958699
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2024-04-09 20:09:23.449822+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T08:15:48.392830
License: Public Domain

Floricic v City of New York
               2024 NY Slip Op 31143(U)
                      April 4, 2024
           Supreme Court, New York County
        Docket Number: Index No 159259/2014
                  Judge: Adam Silvera
Cases posted with a "30000" identifier, i.e., 2013 NY Slip
 Op 30001(U), are republished from various New York
 State and local government sources, including the New
  York State Unified Court System's eCourts Service.
 This opinion is uncorrected and not selected for official
                       publication.
                                                                                                                               INDEX NO. 159259/2014
  NYSCEF DOC. NO. 527                                                                                                   RECEIVED NYSCEF: 04/04/2024

                                   SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK
                                             NEW YORK COUNTY
            PRESENT:             HON. ADAM SILVERA                                                        PART                               40
                                                                                            Justice
                                        --------------X                                                   INDEX NO.           159259/2014
             DAVOR DAVID FLORICIC , JENNY FLORICIC ,
                                                                                                          MOTION DATE          2/15/2024
                                                            Plaintiff,
                                                                                                          MOTION SEQ. NO.         012
                                                   - V-

             CITY OF NEW YORK, MTA, NYCTA, MABSTOA,
             METROPOLITAN TRANSP. AUTHORITY, NYC 2 WAY
             INTERNATIONAL, LTD., D.B.A. CORPORATE
             TRANSPORTATION GROUP, CORPORATE
             TRANSPORTATION GROUP, LTD., CORPORATE
             TRANSPORTATION GROUP WORLDWIDE,                                                                DECISION + ORDER ON
             INC., CORPORATE TRANSPORTATION GROUP                                                                  MOTION
             INTERNATIONAL, ALLO CORPORATE
             TRANSPORTATION GROUP , LLC,CORPORATE
             TRANSPORTATION GROUP, INC.,HYBRID CARS, LTD.,
             BEHZON SHARIPOV, PRUDE CONSTRUCTION CORP.,

                                                            Defendant.
                                                  -------------------------------------X

             PRUDE CONSTRUCTION CORP.                                                                                  Third-Party
                                                                                                                 Index No. 595666/2017
                                                             Plaintiff,

                                                    -against-

             DELANEY ASSOCIATES, LP

                                                             Defendant.
                - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -- - -----------------------------------------X

            The following e-filed documents, listed by NYSCEF document number (Motion 012) 517, 518, 519, 520,
            521 , 522,523,524,525,526
            were read on this motion to/for                                                                BIFURCATE

                     Upon the foregoing documents, and after oral argument on February 15, 2024, it is

            ordered that defendant the City of New York' s motion seeking to bifurcate the trial is denied.

                     Here; moving defendant argues that bifurcation will simplify the issues for the jury,

            promote expeditious resolution of this action, that the issue of liability is separate and apart from

            the issue of damages, and that a unified trial would be prejudicial as the jurors would be
             159259/2014 FLORICIC, DAVOR DAVID vs. CITY OF NEW YORK                                                            Page 1 of 4
             Motion No. 012

                                                                                 1 of 4
[* 1]
                                                                                                     INDEX NO. 159259/2014
  NYSCEF DOC. NO. 527                                                                        RECEIVED NYSCEF: 04/04/2024

           sympathetic to plaintiff upon hearing of the damages. In support, defendant the City of New

           York cites to, inter alia, CPLR §603 and 22 NYCRR §202.42(a).

                   Plaintiff opposes defendant's motion arguing that defendant the City of New York has

           failed to meet its burden to establish that bifurcation would simplify the issues. Moreover,

           plaintiff argues that his injuries are intertwined with the question of liability in that the jury needs

           all of the evidence in order to fairly decide the case. According to plaintiff, the issues of liability

           and damages must be tried together as the medical records, and evidence of damages, establish

           how plaintiff was injured and how the accident happened. In reply, defendant the City of New

           York argues, inter alia, that the issue of plaintiff's injuries have no bearing on how the accident

           occurred.

                   CPLR §603 states, in part, that "[i]n furtherance of convenience or to avoid prejudice the

           court may order a severance of claims, or may order a separate trial of any claim, or of any

           separate issue." 22 NYCRR §202.42(a) states that "Judges arc encouraged to order a bifurcated

           trial of the issues ofliability and damages in any action for personal inj my where it appears that

           bifurcation may assist in a clarification or simplification of issues and a fair and more

           expeditious resolution of the action." Here, plaintiff alleges that he was operating his motorcycle

           when he was struck by a vehicle operated by defendant Behzon Sharipov. Defendant Sharipov

           testified that on-going construction in the roadway led to confusion as to where on the road he

           could tum, as the partial construction left the street unmarked and without signage. Defendant

           the City of New York alleges that its bicycle lane construction project was not a proximate cause

           of plaintiff's injuries.

                   The Appellate Division, First Department held that '·where the question of damages is so

           interwoven with or related to that of liability that the former cannot properly or adequately be

            159259/2014 FLORICIC, DAVOR DAVID vs. CITY OF NEW YORK                                   Page 2 of 4
            Motion No. 012

                                                           2 of 4
[* 2]
                                                                                                       INDEX NO. 159259/2014
  NYSCEF DOC. NO. 527                                                                          RECEIVED NYSCEF: 04/04/2024

           submitted to the jury independent of a consideration of the proofs bearing on the Iiability issue.

           then, ordinarily. there is no justification for a severance of the issues." Afercudo v New York. 25

           AD2d 75. 78 (1 st Dep 't 1966). The Court of Appeals has held that the issue of comparative

           negligence is addressed and determined only when considering the damages that defendant owes

           to a plaintiff. See Rodriguez v City of New York, 31 NY3d 312, 318 (2018). Thus, the issue of

           plaintiffs comparative negligence regarding how the accident happened is, in actuality, an issue

           which is considered only as to damages. As such, liability and damages cannot be easily

           separated herein.

                   Moreover, the Court notes that the statutory, and case, law are clear that bifurcation is not

           mandatory, nor is there a presumption of bifurcation. Rather, the Appellate Division has held that

           "trial courts should use their discretion in determining, in accordance with the statewide rule,

           whether bifurcation will assist in clarifying or simplifying the issues and in achieving a fair and

           more expeditious resolution of the action". Castro v Malia Realty, LLC, 177 AD3d 58, 60 (2 nd

           Dep't 2019). The court in Castro further held that "[a]lthough 22 NYCRR 202.42(a) encourages

           bifurcation where it may assist in a clarification or simplification of issues and a fair and more

           expeditious resolution of the action, it does not, on its face, contain ... [a] strong ... presumption in

           favor of bifurcation". Id. at 63. It is clear from the case law that "bifurcation is not an absolute

           given and it is the responsibility of the trial judge to exercise discretion in determining whether

           bifurcation is appropriate in light of all relevant facts and circumstances presented by the

           individual cases." Id. at 66.

                   Here, taking into account all the facts and circumstances in this action, and in order to

           manage the court calendar and attain an expeditious trial, the factors for a unified trial outweigh

           any potential prejudice raised by the moving defendant. Moreover, the law is clear that the Court

            159259/2014 FLORICIC, DAVOR DAVID vs. CITY OF NEW YORK                                     Page 3 of 4
            Motion No. 012

                                                             3 of 4
[* 3]
                                                                                                   INDEX NO. 159259/2014
  NYSCEF DOC. NO. 527                                                                        RECEIVED NYSCEF: 04/04/2024

           .MAY order bifurcation if it assists in clarification of the issues AND a more expeditious

           resolution of the action. See 22 NYCRR §202.42(a)(emphasis added). Here, a bifurcated trial

           will not serve to expedite this action. CPLR 4011 explicitly provides that the "court may

           determine the sequence in which the issues shall be tried and otherwise regulate the conduct of

           the trial in order to achieve a speedy and unprejudiced disposition of the matters at issue in a

           setting of proper decorum." The Court finds that a bifurcated trial would only serve to delay this

           action and prolong the case which is contrary to the purpose of the statutes cited above. Thus, for

           the reasons specified above and for the purpose of judicial economy, and based upon a thorough

           review of the Court's already full calendar, a unified trial would be most appropriate herein. As

           such, defendant the City of New York's motion is denied.

                   Accordingly, it is

                   ORDERED that defendant the City of New York's motion for a bifurcated trial is denied

           in its entirety; and it is further

                   ORDERED that all counsel shall appear for a conference on April 18, 2024 at 9:30am, to

           schedule a trial date, in room 422 of 60 Centre Street, New York, NY; and it is further

                   ORDERED that within 30 days of entry, plaintiff shall serve a copy of this decision/order

           upon defendants with notice of entry.

                   This constitutes the Decision/Order of the Court.

                    4/4/2024
                      DATE
                                                                                  DL
                                                                                  ADAM SILVERA, J.S.C.

                                      ~
            CHECK ONE:                     CASE DISPOSED                 NON-FINAL DISPOSITION

                                           GRANTED         0    DENIED   GRANTED IN PART         □ OTHER
            APPLICATION:                   SETTLE ORDER                  SUBMIT ORDER

            CHECK IF APPROPRIATE:          INCLUDES TRANSFER/REASSIGN    FIDUCIARY APPOINTMENT   □ REFERENCE

            159259/2014 FLORICIC, DAVOR DAVID vs. CITY OF NEW YORK                                 Page 4 of 4
            Motion No. 012

                                                               4 of 4
[* 4]