You are here: / / JURY CONFUSION, STEMMING FROM THE WORDING OF THE SPECIAL VERDICT SHEET,...
, ,

JURY CONFUSION, STEMMING FROM THE WORDING OF THE SPECIAL VERDICT SHEET, MANDATED A NEW TRIAL.

The First Department, in three, two-justice concurring opinions, determined plaintiff’s motion to set aside the jury verdict should have granted on “jury confusion” grounds. Plaintiff had a kidney removed for his father’s transplant procedure. A “knot pusher device” was left inside plaintiff, and he underwent a second surgery to remove it. The jury, based on the special verdict sheet, indicated leaving the “knot pusher device” inside plaintiff was not the proximate cause of his injury, but the jury sent out a note stating the plaintiff should be awarded $50,000 for having to undergo the second procedure:

 

An examination of the record reveals that the special verdict sheet was “unclear and confusing” …, because it did not provide for an award of damages caused by the need to undergo a second surgery. The confusing and ambiguous wording of the verdict sheet caused the jurors to experience substantial confusion in reaching their verdict … . While “[t]he ambiguity had been brought to the attention of the trial Justice before the jury was discharged and could have been corrected or at least clarified at that time” …, the court did not do so and a new trial  … is required to prevent a miscarriage of justice. Srikishun v Edye, 2016 NY Slip Op 00315, 1st Dept 1-19-16

 

NEGLIGENCE (CONFUSION CAUSED BY SPECIAL VERDICT SHEET MANDATED A NEW TRIAL)/MEDICAL MALPRACTICE (CONFUSION CAUSED BY SPECIAL VERDICT SHEET MANDATED A NEW TRIAL)/CIVIL PROCEDURE (MOTION TO SET ASIDE VERDICT BECAUSE OF JURY CONFUSION STEMMING FROM THE VERDICT SHEET SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED)/JURIES (NEW TRIAL SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED DUE TO CONFUSION STEMMING FROM THE SPECIAL VERDICT SHEET)/VERDICT SHEET (CONFUSING SPECIAL VERDICT SHEET WARRANTED A NEW TRIAL)

You might also like
THE THREAT MADE BY DEFENDANT WAS PERSONAL IN NATURE AND WAS NOT DIRECTED AT THE CIVILIAN POPULATION WITHIN THE MEANING OF THE TERRORISM STATUTE (PENAL LAW 490.20); THE CONVICTION WAS NOT SUPPORTED BY LEGALLY SUFFICIENT EVIDENCE AND WAS AGAINST THE WEIGHT OF THE EVIDENCE (FIRST DEPT). ​
THERE WAS CONFLICTING EVIDENCE WHETHER PLAINTIFF, WHO HAD NO MEMORY OF THE ACCIDENT, FELL FROM AN A-FRAME LADDER OR A SCAFFOLD, BOTH WERE DEEMED INADEQUATE SAFETY DEVICES AND PLAINTIFF WAS ENTITLED TO SUMMARY JUDGMENT ON HIS LABOR LAW 240 (1) CAUSE OF ACTION (FIRST DEPT).
PLAINTIFF TESTIFIED IT HAD RAINED FOR ONLY FIVE MINUTES BEFORE SHE SLIPPED AND FELL ON WATER ON THE FLOOR; THEREFORE HER TESTIMONY ESTABLISHED DEFENDANTS DID NOT HAVE CONSTRUCTIVE NOTICE OF THE CONDITION (FIRST DEPT).
PLAINTIFF FELL WHEN A TEMPORARY SCAFFOLD HE HAD BUILT COLLAPSED; DEFENDANTS ARGUED PLAINTIFF DID NOT FOLLOW INSTRUCTIONS ON HOW TO PROPERLY BUILD THE SCAFFOLD; THE RECALCITRANT-WORKER DEFENSE DID NOT APPLY BECAUSE PLAINTIFF WAS NEVER PROVIDED WITH AN ADEQUATE SAFETY DEVICE AND PLAINTIFF’S ALLEGED COMPARATIVE NEGLIGENCE WILL NOT DEFEAT A LABOR LAW 240(1) SUMMARY JUDGMENT MOTION (FIRST DEPT).
Spoliation of Evidence.
SUMMARY JUDGMENT SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED TO THE CLUB AND THE SECURITY COMPANY IN THIS THIRD PARTY ASSAULT CASE; THERE WERE QUESTIONS OF FACT ABOUT WHETHER THE CLUB COULD BE HELD RESPONSIBLE FOR CRIMINAL ACTIVITY IN THE STREET IN FRONT OF THE CLUB, WHETHER THE CLUB WAS THE SPECIAL EMPLOYER OF THE BOUNCERS AND THEREFORE SUBJECT TO VICARIOUS LIABILITY, AND WHETHER THERE WAS DRAM SHOP ACT LIABILITY (FIRST DEPT). ​
THE RESPONDENT CITY HAD TIMELY KNOWLEDGE OF THE ESSENTIAL FACTS SURROUNDING THE BUS-VEHICLE COLLISION AND WAS NOT PREJUDICED BY THE TEN MONTH DELAY IN FILING THE NOTICE OF CLAIM; PETITIONER’S MOTION FOR LEAVE TO FILE A LATE NOTICE OF CLAIM SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED, EVEN IN THE ABSENCE OF AN ADEQUATE EXCUSE (LAW OFFICE FAILURE) (FIRST DEPT).
FAMILY COURT DID NOT HAVE SUFFICIENT EVIDENCE BEFORE IT TO GRANT FATHER’S PETITION FOR CUSTODY WHEN MOTHER FAILED TO APPEAR, MOTHER’S MOTION TO VACATE THE DEFAULT ORDER SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED (FIRST 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

PLAINTIFF’S INABILITY TO SHOW ACTUAL OUT-OF-POCKET LOSS REQUIRED DISMISSAL... GOOD CAUSE FOR A FIVE-YEAR EXTENSION OF AN ORDER OF PROTECTION WAS DEMONSTRATED,...