Separate trials or bifurcation of a trial keeps a lawsuit intact, but allows the judge or jury to hear and determine one or more issues without trying all of the issues at the same time. This is often done to avoid unnecessarily prejudicing or inflaming the jury with evidence related to one issue that is not related to another issue. For example, courts sometimes order separate trials or bifurcation of a trial when a party is seeking punitive or exemplary damages, and the court does not want evidence of the person’s net worth or the entity’s valuation or revenue—which are relevant to punitive damages—to influence the jury’s decision on whether the person or entity is liable for the breach of contract, negligence, or other claim. In such a bifurcated trial, the jury does not hear evidence of the net worth, valuation, or revenue unless it first finds the defendant liable on the underlying claim.

In New York, the concept of separate trials or bifurcation is addressed under the New York Civil Practice Law and Rules (CPLR). According to CPLR Section 603, a court has the discretion to order a separate trial for one or more issues, claims, cross-claims, counterclaims, or third-party claims, or for any separate issues therein. This is done in the interest of convenience or to avoid prejudice. Bifurcation is often used in cases where the presentation of evidence on one issue may unfairly influence the jury's decision on another issue. For instance, in cases where punitive damages are sought, a court may bifurcate the trial to prevent the jury from hearing evidence about a defendant's financial status until after they have determined liability on the underlying claim. This helps ensure that the decision on liability is based solely on the relevant facts and not on the potential impact of the defendant's wealth or lack thereof.