You are here: / / Failure to Empanel the First Six Jurors Chosen by the Parties Justified...

Failure to Empanel the First Six Jurors Chosen by the Parties Justified Setting Aside the Verdict

The Third Department upheld Supreme Court’s setting aside the verdict in a medical malpractice case after the jury had found “no cause for action.”  A rule in the Third Judicial District allowed the clerk to randomly select the jurors and alternates.  The plaintiff moved to set aside the verdict because the first six jurors chosen by the parties were not empanelled by the clerk, as required by CPLR 4105.  Under the CPLR jurors 1 through 6 should have constituted the jury and jurors 7 and 8 should have been designated the alternate jurors. The clerk selected jurors 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 and 8.  The Third Department perceived no abuse of discretion in setting aside the verdict:

After having determined that its application of the Third Judicial District rule contravened plaintiff’s substantial right to empanel the first six jurors that had been selected by the parties, pursuant to the “mandatory procedure” set forth in CPLR 4105, Supreme Court exercised its discretion and granted plaintiff’s motion to set aside the verdict and order a new trial in the interest of justice. In the absence of evidence that the court abused such discretion, we will not disturb Supreme Court’s determination in that regard … . Piacente v Bernstein, 2015 NY Slip Op 03009, 3rd Dept 4-9-15

 

You might also like
THE UNAVAILABILIITY OF PARKING FOR WORK REQUIRED THAT CLAIMANT CROSS A DANGEROUS ROAD TO GET TO HIS WORKPLACE; THE INJURIES SUFFERED WHEN CLAIMANT WAS STRUCK BY A VEHICLE WERE THEREFORE COMPENSABLE (THIRD DEPT).
INSUFFICIENT SHOWING BY THE STATE POLICE TO JUSTIFY DENIAL OF REQUEST FOR RECORDS PERTAINING TO A VICTIM OF CRIMES COMMITTED BY PETITIONER, MATTER REMITTED.
THE SUPERIOR COURT INFORMATION (SCI) DID NOT AFFIRMATIVELY PLEAD THE EXCEPTION IN THE CRIMINAL MISCHIEF STATUTE; THEREFORE THE CRIMINAL MISCHIEF COUNT WAS JURISDICTIONALLY DEFECTIVE (THIRD DEPT).
Criteria for Common-Law Indemnification Explained
ZONING BOARD’S DENIAL OF A VARIANCE WAS BASED PRIMARILY ON COMMUNITY OPPOSITION; THE DENIAL WAS PROPERLY ANNULLED BY SUPREME COURT (THIRD DEPT).
Disciplinary Actions by SUNY School Did Not Violate Student’s Due Process Rights 
Homeowner Not Liable for Construction-Related Death—Criteria for Homeowner’s Exemption and Supervisory Control by Homeowner Described in Some Depth
14-MONTH DELAY IN THE TRANSCRIPTION OF THE RECORD DID NOT DEPRIVE DEFENDANT OF HIS RIGHT TO APPEAL (THIRD 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

Denial of Area Variance In the Absence of Evidence of a Detrimental Effect on... Venue Was Not Proper—However, Because the Party Seeking the Change of...