You are here: / / INSTRUCTING THE JURY ON THE BURDEN OF PROOF IN THIS DAMAGES-ONLY PERSONAL...
, , ,

INSTRUCTING THE JURY ON THE BURDEN OF PROOF IN THIS DAMAGES-ONLY PERSONAL INJURY TRIAL SHIFTED THE BURDEN OF PROOF; $5,500,000 VERDICT SET ASIDE AND NEW TRIAL ORDERED (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, ordering a new trial in this personal injury action which had resulted in a $5,500,000 verdict, determined the “burden of proof” jury instruction should not have been given in this damages-only trial:

… [T]he defendants contend … that the verdict and judgment must be set aside on the ground that they were deprived of a fair trial by the Supreme Court’s improper jury instruction on the law. Specifically, the defendants contend that the court erroneously charged the jury with respect to the burden of proof.

“A trial court is required to state the law relevant to the particular facts in issue, and a set of instructions that confuses or incompletely conveys the germane legal principles to be applied in a case requires a new trial”… .

Here, we agree with the defendants that under the facts of this case, the Supreme Court’s determination to charge Pattern Jury Instructions 1:60 was improper in the context of a trial limited to the issue of damages only and was prejudicial to the defendants in that it shifted the burden of proof. In light of the court’s error in the charge, substantial justice was not done since the jury was not instructed with the germane legal principles to be applied … . Gorokhova v Consolidated Edison of N.Y., Inc., 2020 NY Slip Op 04828, Second Dept 9-2-20

 

You might also like
Allegations of Wrongdoing Insufficient to Support Shareholders Derivative Action Pursuant to BCL 626 (c)
Petitioner, Who Was Sentenced to Death in Federal Court, Could Not Be Declared “Civilly Dead” Pursuant to the Civil Rights Law—Paternity Petition Should Not Have Been Dismissed
ALTHOUGH THE VILLAGE CODE MADE THE ABUTTING PROPERTY OWNER RESPONSIBLE FOR MAINTAINING THE SIDEWALK, THE CODE DID NOT IMPOSE TORT LIABILITY ON THE ABUTTING PROPERTY OWNER; THE PROPERTY OWNER’S MOTION TO DISMISS THIS SIDEWALK SLIP AND FALL ACTION SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED (SECOND DEPT).
Proof Submitted in Reply Papers Not Considered
19 YEAR OLD NOTICE OF CLAIM WAS NOT SUFFICIENT WRITTEN NOTICE OF SIDEWALK DEFECT.
Corporations Owned by the Individual Operating the Businesses Were Not the “Alter Ego” of the Individual Owner—Criteria for Piercing the Corporate Veil Not Met—Corporation Which Leased the Property from the Corporation Which Owned the Property Was Entitled to Compensation for Fixtures
GENERALLY, TO VACATE A JUDGMENT BY CONFESSION, A PLENARY ACTION, NOT A MOTION TO VACATE, MUST BE BROUGHT (SECOND DEPT).
Failure to Include Restitution in Plea Negotiations Precluded Imposing Restitution at Sentencing

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 TREATING PHYSICIAN SHOULD HAVE BEEN MADE AVAILABLE FOR CROSS-EXAMINATION... THE NOTICE REQUIREMENTS OF REAL PROPERTY ACTIONS AND PROCEEDINGS LAW (RPAPL)...