BERMAN v. COUNTY OF SUFFOLK (2006)

In an action to recover damages for personal injuries and injury to property, the defendants appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Suffolk County (Baisley, Jr., J.), dated July 28, 2005, which denied their motion for a unified trial on the issues of liability and damages.

ORDERED that the order is affirmed, without costs or disbursements.

 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 22 NYCRR 202.42[a];  Barrera v. Skaggs-Walsh, Inc., 279 A.D.2d 442, 719 N.Y.S.2d 90;  Rothbard v. F.W. Woolworth Co., 233 A.D.2d 434, 650 N.Y.S.2d 282;  Martinez v. Town of Babylon, 191 A.D.2d 483, 484, 594 N.Y.S.2d 357).   It is only where the nature of the injuries has an important bearing on the issue of liability that a joint trial of both issues is permitted (see Dulin v. Maher, 200 A.D.2d 707, 607 N.Y.S.2d 67;  Amato v. Hudson Country Montessori School, 185 A.D.2d 803, 804, 586 N.Y.S.2d 635;  cf. DeGregorio v. Lutheran Med. Ctr., 142 A.D.2d 543, 544, 529 N.Y.S.2d 903).   The Supreme Court providently denied the defendants' motion for a unified trial, as the defendants failed to show a need to introduce evidence of the alleged injuries in order to establish that they were nonnegligent in the happening of this rear-end collision (see Barrera v. Skaggs-Walsh, Inc., supra;  Felice v. Southside Hosp., 249 A.D.2d 359, 360, 670 N.Y.S.2d 370;  Rothbard v. F.W. Woolworth Co., supra ).