You are here: / / Proper Way to Handle an Inconsistent Verdict Explained
,

Proper Way to Handle an Inconsistent Verdict Explained

The Second Department explained the proper procedure when a verdict is inconsistent (either have the jury reconsider the verdict or order a new trial):

“When a jury’s verdict is internally inconsistent, the trial court must direct either reconsideration by the jury or a new trial” … . Here, the jury’s verdict was internally inconsistent, as the jury attributed 10% of the fault for the plaintiff’s accident to both the plaintiff and [one of the two defendants], despite having found that their negligence was not a substantial factor in causing the accident … . The Supreme Court should have resolved the substantial juror confusion, as demonstrated by the internally inconsistent verdict, by either resubmitting the case to the jury for reconsideration or directing a new trial on the issue of liability (see CPLR 4111[c]…). Kumar v PI Assoc LLC, 2015 NY Slip Op 00849, 2nd Dept 2-4-15

 

You might also like
PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION FOR JUDGMENT AS A MATTER OF LAW PURSUANT TO CPLR 4401 PROPERLY GRANTED ON THE LABOR LAW 240(1) CAUSE OF ACTION, JURY HAD FOUND THE LABOR LAW 240(1) VIOLATION WAS NOT THE PROXIMATE CAUSE OF THE ACCIDENT.
​THE BUYER WAS NOTIFED TIME WAS OF THE ESSENCE IN THIS REAL ESTATE DEAL AND WAS GIVEN A REASONABLE TIME IN WHICH TO CLOSE; THEREFORE THE BUYER WAS NOT ENTITLED TO SPECIFIC PERFORMANCE AND THE SELLERS WERE ENTITLED TO THE DOWN PAYMENT AS LIQUIDATED DAMAGES (SECOND DEPT).
EVIDENCE DID NOT SUPPORT TEMPORARY REMOVAL OF CHILD FROM FATHER’S CUSTODY DURING THE PENDENCY OF A CHILD PROTECTIVE PROCEEDING (SECOND DEPT).
QUESTIONS OF FACT WHETHER DEFENDANT BUS DRIVER WAS NEGLIGENT; PLAINTIFF’S HAND WAS CAUGHT IN THE CLOSED DOOR OF THE BUS (SECOND DEPT).
THE COVID EXECUTIVE ORDERS TOLLING STATUTES OF LIMITATIONS EXTENDED THE DEADLINE FOR FILING ACTIONS UNDER THE CHILD VICTIMS ACT UNTIL NOVEMBER 12, 2021 (SECOND DEPT). ​
Cleaning Gutters Not Covered
EVIDENCE DEFENDANTS DID NOT CREATE THE WATER-ON-FLOOR CONDITION IN THIS SLIP AND FALL CASE WAS FIRST PRESENTED IN REPLY PAPERS; THEREFORE DEFENDANTS DID NOT MEET THEIR BURDEN ON THAT ISSUE; ALTHOUGH THERE WAS EVIDENCE THE AREA OF THE SLIP AND FALL WAS INSPECTED AT 7:00 AT THE START OF THE EVENT AND SOMETIME THEREAFTER, THERE WAS NO SPECIFIC EVIDENCE THE AREA WAS INSPECTED CLOSE IN TIME TO THE FALL AT 8:30, NEAR THE END OF THE EVENT (SECOND DEPT).
PETITIONERS CLOSE TO THE PROPOSED GAS STATION HAD STANDING TO CONTEST THE BOARD’S SEQRA RULING APPROVING CONSTRUCTION, SUPREME COURT PROPERLY FOUND THE BOARD’S APPROVAL WAS IMPROPER UNDER SEQRA (SECOND 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

Whether Arbitrator Erred In Applying the Applicable Law Is Beyond the Courts’... Party Moving for a Change of Venue Must Demonstrate the Change Will Better Serve...