CPLR § 602 Consolidation
(a) Generally
Johnstone-mann v Stout, 2009 NY Slip Op 04829 (App. Div., 4th, 2009)
Memorandum: In action No. 1, the plaintiffs seek damages for injuries sustained by Kim M. Johnstone-Mann when the vehicle she was driving collided with a vehicle driven by Julie M. Stout, a defendant in action No. 1. Julie Stout in turn commenced action No. 2 against Johnstone-Mann, seeking damages arising from the same collision. Supreme Court did not abuse its discretion in granting that part of the motion of the defendants in action No. 1 and the plaintiff in action No. 2 seeking a joint trial of the two actions (see generally Nationwide Assoc. v Targee St. Internal Med. Group, P.C. Profit Sharing Trust, 286 AD2d 717, 718). "Absent a showing of prejudice, a motion . . . for a joint trial pursuant to CPLR 602 (a) should be granted where common questions of law or fact exist" (Spector v Zuckermann, 287 AD2d 704, 706). We conclude, however, that the court erred in granting that part of the motion seeking to bifurcate the trial. " Separate trials on the issues of liability and damage[s] should not be held where the nature of the injuries has an important bearing on the issue of liability' " (Fox v Frometa, 43 [*2]AD3d 1432). Here, evidence of the injuries and resulting amnesia sustained by Julie Stout is " necessary for the . . . purpose of allowing the [trier of fact] to consider whether [she] should be held to a lesser degree of proof' on the issue of liability" (id.; see Schwartz v Binder, 91 AD2d 660). We therefore modify the order accordingly.
The bold is mine.
