Greenberg v. City of Yonkers, 37 N.Y.2d 907 (1975)
A party can be found negligent for the purpose of apportionment of liability in a subsequent stage of a trial, even if the issue of their negligence was not initially submitted to the jury in the first stage focusing on a different theory of liability.
Summary
In this case, the plaintiffs initially litigated their claim against the defendant, Cyanamid, on a warranty theory, and evidence of Cyanamid’s negligence was excluded during the first stage of the trial. Cyanamid later argued that because it was not found negligent in the first stage, the jury could not find it negligent on the respondents’ cross-claims for apportionment of liability. The Court of Appeals held that this argument was without merit, especially since the trial court had emphasized that evidence of Cyanamid’s negligence was to be presented during the second stage of the trial for apportionment of liability. The court affirmed the lower court’s decision.
Facts
The plaintiffs initially pursued their claim against Cyanamid based on a warranty theory.
During the first stage of the trial, evidence regarding Cyanamid’s negligence was excluded.
Later, Cyanamid argued that because no negligence was found against them in the initial stage, the jury could not find them negligent on cross-claims for apportionment of liability.
Procedural History
The trial court allowed evidence of Cyanamid’s negligence to be presented in the second stage of the trial, focused on apportionment of liability.
The Appellate Division affirmed the trial court’s decision.
The Court of Appeals affirmed the Appellate Division’s decision based on the reasoning of Justice Shapiro.
Issue(s)
Whether a party can be found negligent for apportionment of liability purposes in a later stage of a trial when evidence of their negligence was excluded during the initial stage focusing on a different theory of liability.
Holding
Yes, because the initial focus on a warranty claim and the exclusion of negligence evidence in the first stage of trial does not preclude a finding of negligence for apportionment of liability in a subsequent stage, especially when the trial court explicitly stated that negligence evidence would be presented during the second stage.
Court’s Reasoning
The Court of Appeals found Cyanamid’s argument to be without merit, emphasizing that the issue of Cyanamid’s negligence was explicitly reserved for the second stage of the trial, which was dedicated to the apportionment of liability. The court cited Dole v. Dow Chemical Co., indicating that contribution and apportionment principles allow for such a determination even if negligence was not the primary theory of liability initially pursued by the plaintiff. The court also noted that the trial court made it clear on multiple occasions that evidence of Cyanamid’s negligence would be presented during the second stage of the trial. The court affirmed based on the reasoning of Justice Shapiro in the lower court decision. The court explicitly stated that “This position is patently without merit (Dole v Dow Chem. Co., 30 NY2d 143; cf. Rogers v Dorchester Assoc., 32 NY2d 553)”. The court cautioned against the trifurcation procedure utilized by the trial court, indicating that it is preferable to resolve issues of liability in a single stage of trial.