You are here: / / THE JUDGE PROPERLY HANDLED A JUROR’S HESITATION WHEN THE JURY WAS...
,

THE JUDGE PROPERLY HANDLED A JUROR’S HESITATION WHEN THE JURY WAS POLLED, THE JUROR WAS QUESTIONED BY THE JUDGE OUTSIDE THE PRESENCE OF THE JURY, THE JUDGE DETERMINED THE JUROR WAS NOT UNDER IMPROPER PRESSURE AND SENT THE JURY BACK FOR FURTHER DELIBERATIONS (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department determined the trial judge properly handled a juror’s (juror number two’s) hesitation when the jury was polled. Outside the presence of the jury, the judge asked the juror about his reasons for hesitation, determined it was not caused by improper pressure, and sent the jury back for more deliberations:

… [T]he Supreme Court providently exercised its discretion in denying his motion for a mistrial based upon juror number two’s hesitation in affirming the verdict. “[T]he jury must, if either party makes such an application, be polled and each juror separately asked whether the verdict announced by the foreman is in all respects his verdict. If . . . any juror answers in the negative, the court must refuse to accept the verdict and must direct the jury to resume its deliberation” (CPL 310.80). Here, the court appropriately conducted an inquiry, outside the other jurors’ presence, into why juror number two hesitated in affirming the verdict, and further obtained clarification as to the reasons he gave … . Juror number two’s responses clarified that the pressure he perceived did not “[arise] out of matters extraneous to the jury’s deliberations or not properly within their scope” … . Further, his responses established that the “verdict [was] not the product of actual or threatened physical harm” … . Accordingly, we agree with the court’s determination to instruct the jury to continue deliberating … . People v Folkes, 2019 NY Slip Op 04719, Second Dept 6-12-19

 

You might also like
THE CHILD’S FOSTER PARENTS WERE PERSONS LEGALLY RESPONSIBLE FOR THE CARE OF THE CHILD AND WERE ENTITLED TO A HEARING BEFORE THE CHILD WAS REMOVED FROM THEIR CARE (SECOND DEPT).
PLAINTIFF, A HOMEOWNER WHOSE COMPANY HIRED DEFENDANT SUBCONTRACTOR TO WORK AT PLAINTIFF’S HOME, WAS A PROPER PLAINTIFF UNDER LABOR LAW 240 (1) AND 241 (6), QUESTIONS OF FACT WHETHER DEFENDANT WAS IN CONTROL OF THE WORK SITE AND HAD BEEN DELEGATED SITE SAFETY RESPONSIBILITIES (SECOND DEPT).
SETTLEMENT WITH INSURER DID NOT RESOLVE THE UNDERLYING WRONGFUL DENIAL OF COVERAGE ALLEGATION AGAINST THE INSURER, THE ACTIONS AGAINST THE INSURANCE BROKERS, ALLEGING FAILURE TO PROCURE THE REQUESTED INSURANCE, SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN DISMISSED (SECOND DEPT).
PORTIONS OF DEFENDANT’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT PROPERLY DENIED AS UNTIMELY; THE PORTION OF THE UNTIMELY MOTION WHICH HAD BEEN TIMELY RAISED BY ANOTHER DEFENDANT WAS PROPERLY CONSIDERED; THE LABOR LAW 241(6) CAUSE OF ACTION PROPERLY RELIED ON INDUSTRIAL CODE PROVISIONS REQUIRING THAT ELECTRICAL POWER BE SHUT DOWN TO PROTECT ELECTRICAL WORKERS (SECOND DEPT).
NEW INFORMATION IN REPLY PAPERS PROPERLY CONSIDERED BY THE COURT.
ALTHOUGH THE RPAPL 1304 NOTICE OF FORECLOSURE COMPLIED WITH THE STATUTE WHEN IT WAS SENT, IT DID NOT COMPLY WITH THE VERSION OF THE STATUTE IN EFFECT WHEN THE ACTION WAS COMMENCED; PLAINTIFF’S SUMMARY JUDGMENT MOTION SHOULD HAVE BEEN DENIED (SECOND DEPT).
Bank’s Duty With Respect to Negligent Dishonoring of a Cashier’s Check 
SUPREME COURT SHOULD NOT HAVE CONFIRMED THE REFEREE’S REPORT IN THIS FORECLOSURE ACTION BECAUSE THE BUSINESS RECORDS UPON WHICH THE CALCULATIONS IN THE REPORT WERE BASED WERE NOT PRODUCED (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 © 2025 New York Appellate Digest, Inc.
Site by CurlyHost | Privacy Policy

THE NEGATIVE CHARACTER TESTIMONY WAS PROPERLY STRUCK, NOT BECAUSE SUCH EVIDENCE... DEFENSE COUNSEL SUCCESSFULLY PURSUED A MISIDENTIFICATION DEFENSE THROUGHOUT...