You are here: / / Inconsistent Interrogatory Answers Do Not Support A Judgment.

Inconsistent Interrogatory Answers Do Not Support A Judgment.

No judgment can be entered based upon inconsistent interrogatory answers (by the jury) and a general verdict.  The only remedy is for the trial judge to instruct the jury to keep deliberating or order a new trial (CPLR 4111 (c)).  Applebee vs County of Cayuga, 1388, CA 11-02090 Fourth Dept. 2-8-13

 

You might also like
THE ARBITRATOR’S INTERPRETATION OF THE COLLECTIVE BARGAINING AGREEMENT WAS NOT IRRATIONAL; THE AWARD MUST BE CONFIRMED EVEN WHERE THE COURT DISAGREES WITH THE INTERPRETATION (FOURTH DEPT).
DEFENDANT INSURANCE AGENT WAS NOT UNDER A DUTY TO NOTIFY THE INSURER OF THE INSURED’S DEATH OR TO MAKE SURE ADDITIONAL INSUREDS WERE NAMED ON THE POLICY AFTER THE INSURED’S DEATH; THE DECEDENT’S DAUGHTER CONTINUED TO PAY THE HOUSE INSURANCE PREMIUMS AFTER HER MOTHER’S DEATH, WHEN THE HOUSE WAS DESTROYED BY FIRE THE INSURER DISCLAIMED COVERAGE BECAUSE ONLY THE DECEDENT WAS NAMED ON THE POLICY (FOURTH DEPT).
Defendant Should Have Been Allowed to Testify Before the Grand Jury
PROSECUTOR ADMONISHED FOR IMPROPER REMARKS IN SUMMATION (CONVICTION NOT REVERSED HOWEVER); INSUFFICIENT EVIDENCE OF PHYSICAL INJURY TO SUPPORT ASSAULT 3RD CONVICTION.
REFUSING SECTION 8 VOUCHERS AS RENT PAYMENT VIOLATES THE WEST SENECA FAIR HOUSING CODE (FOURTH DEPT).
Pat-down Search Pursuant to a Stop for a Traffic Infraction Unlawful—Injury to Officer During Unlawful Search Will Not Support Assault Conviction (Which Requires the Officer Be Injured Performing a Lawful Duty)
Termination of Parental Rights Affirmed Because Diligent Efforts to Reunite Parent and Child Were Made (In Spite of Misdiagnosis of Mother’s and Child’s Psychological Conditions)
EVIDENCE WAS SEIZED DURING A WARRANTLESS PAROLE SEARCH AT A TIME WHEN DEFENDANT’S POST RELEASE SUPERVISION (PRS) HAD BEEN IMPOSED ADMINISTRATIVELY, WHICH HAS SINCE BEEN FOUND UNCONSTITUTIONAL; BECAUSE THE LAW CONCERNING THE REQUIREMENT OF JUDICIAL IMPOSITION OF PRS IS NOW CLEAR, SUPPRESSING THE EVIDENCE WOULD HAVE NO DETERRENT EFFECT AND IS NOT THEREFORE NECESSARY (FOURTH DEPT).

Categories

Sign Up for the Mailing List to Be Notified When the Site Is Updated.

  • This field is for validation purposes and should be left unchanged.

Copyright © 2026 New York Appellate Digest, Inc.
Site by CurlyHost | Privacy Policy

Court Did Not Have Power to Amend Child Support, Maintenance Judgment. Evidence Seized in Search Suppressed, Police Officer Did Not Have a Founded...