Furlong v. Shenoy

2025 NY Slip Op 01540 · Appellate Division, Fourth Judicial Department · March 14, 2025 · No. 957 CA 23-02002

Summary

The Appellate Division, Fourth Department reviewed a trial court order that granted a defendant's motion to sever two causes of action in a medical malpractice lawsuit. The appellate court determined that the record was insufficiently developed to demonstrate substantial prejudice, which is required to justify severance under CPLR 603. Consequently, the court modified the order to deny the severance motion without prejudice, noting that the issue can be reassessed after discovery is complete.

Court
Appellate Division, Fourth Judicial Department
Writing for the Court
SMITH, J.P.; MONTOUR; OGDEN; DELCONTE; HANNAH
Jurisdiction
New York
Decision date
March 14, 2025
Docket number
957 CA 23-02002
Procedural posture
Appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Erie County granting in part the cross‑motion to sever the first and second causes of action.
Standard of review
abuse of discretion
Precedential value
published
Parties
Michelle Furlong and Jeff Furlong v. Sadashiv S. Shenoy, M.D., Sadashiv S. Shenoy, M.D., PLLC
Disposition
affirmed

Topics

civil procedureappellate procedurestandard of review

Practice areas

civil proceduretortshealth law

Questions Presented

  1. Whether the trial court abused its discretion in granting the cross‑motion to sever the first and second causes of action under CPLR 603.

Holdings

  1. The trial court erred; it should have denied the severance motion without prejudice because the plaintiffs failed to show substantial prejudice, and the order is modified accordingly.

Key quotations

A court's exercise of discretion in determining a request for a severance pursuant to CPLR 603 will not be disturbed on appeal "absent [an] abuse of discretion or prejudice to a party's substantial rights". (1307)
The burden is on the party seeking the severance to show that a joint trial would result in substantial prejudice. (57)
"Once discovery is completed and the facts and issues are fully brought to light, the court can more intelligently exercise its discretion in deciding whether a severance is warranted," while considering whether potential prejudice could be prevented by jury instructions. (242)

Factual background

Plaintiffs, the Furlongs, sued Dr. Sadashiv S. Shenoy and his professional corporation for negligence in performing a lumbar spine diagnostic procedure at Kaleida Health’s Millard Fillmore Suburban Hospital and for negligent credentialing of Dr. Shenoy after a prior finding of incompetence.

Procedural history

The trial court granted the defendants' cross‑motion to sever the two causes of action before the plaintiff had served an answer, citing CPLR 603. The plaintiffs appealed, arguing the record was insufficient to show prejudice.

Court Document

Open PDF
Loading document…