General
John Costin, Respondent, v. Dolores Costin, Appellant
225 A.D.2d 575638 N.Y.S.2d 786·New York Supreme Court, Appellate Division·1996·NY
Brief incoming
Hand-reviewed Bluebook brief (procedural posture, facts, issue, holding, reasoning, dissent) ships once the AI generation pipeline runs through this case. Join the waitlist to get notified when 1L briefs go live.
Opinion
John Costin, Respondent, v Dolores Costin, Appellant.
[638 NYS2d 786]
[MAJORITY]
Bifurcation of matrimonial actions is generally disfavored because it raises the possibilities of economic coercion, two protracted proceedings, or delay in resolving the financial issues (Campbell v Campbell, 171 AD2d 720; Fiorella v Fiorella, 132 AD2d 643). Absent concrete reasons for bifurcation, such a motion should be denied (see, Campbell v Campbell, supra, at 721). Here, the only reason the plaintiff offers is that the grounds phase would progress quickly and the equitable distribution phase would be more complicated. Such a reason does not warrant bifurcation and could well lead to a delay in resolving the financial issues. Bracken, J. P., Balletta, Thompson and Hart, JJ., concur.