You are here: / / THE TRIAL JUDGE DID NOT GIVE COUNSEL MEANINGFUL NOTICE OF A SUBSTANTIVE...
, ,

THE TRIAL JUDGE DID NOT GIVE COUNSEL MEANINGFUL NOTICE OF A SUBSTANTIVE JURY NOTE; NEW TRIAL ORDERED (SECOND DEPT). ​

The Second Department, ordering a new trial, determined the trial judge did not give counsel meaningful notice of a substantive jury note:

Pursuant to CPL 310.30, when a trial court receives a substantive jury inquiry, the court has two separate duties: “the duty to notify counsel and the duty to respond”… . With regard to the former duty, the court must provide counsel “notice of the actual specific content of the jurors’ request” … . A “trial court’s failure to provide counsel with meaningful notice of a substantive jury note is a mode of proceedings error that requires reversal” … .

Here, although marked as a court exhibit, the trial transcript does not reflect that the Supreme Court showed or read verbatim to counsel a jury note, which stated: “We would like the DNA results in regards to the blood smear on the banister.” People v Carillo, 2021 NY Slip Op 05710, Second Dept 10-20-21

 

You might also like
Anonymous 911 Call Admitted Under Excited Utterance and Present Sense Impression Hearsay Exceptions
Family Court Should Not Have Terminated Parental Rights (After an Alleged Violation of a Drug-Treatment Condition of a Suspended Judgment) Without Holding the Necessary Hearings
THE COVID TOLL OF THE STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS RENDERED THIS NEGLIGENCE ACTION AGAINST A MUNICIPALITY TIMELY (SECOND DEPT). ​
WHETHER THE DEFENDANT FIRST STOPPED AT THE STOP SIGN OR DROVE THROUGH THE STOP SIGN DOESN’T MATTER BECAUSE EITHER WAY THE VEHICLE AND TRAFFIC LAW WAS VIOLATED; PLAINTIFF’S MOTION TO SET ASIDE THE DEFENSE VERDICT IN THIS INTERSECTION TRAFFIC ACCIDENT CASE SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED (SECOND DEPT).
NOTICE OF CLAIM WHICH WAS MISDIRECTED BECAUSE OF A MINOR MISNOMER ON THE MAILED ENVELOPE DEEMED TIMELY SERVED.
SUPREME COURT CORRECTLY DETERMINED THE HIGHEST AND BEST USE BASED ON THE ASSUMPTION THE PROPERTY WOULD HAVE BEEN REZONED, RAISING THE VALUE OF THE PROPERTY.
FEE-SPLITTING ARRANGEMENT BETWEEN PHYSICIANS AND NON-PHYSICIANS IS ILLEGAL UNDER THE EDUCATION LAW AND CANNOT BE ENFORCED BY THE COURTS, SUPREME COURT PROPERLY SEARCHED THE RECORD AND AWARDED SUMMARY JUDGMENT TO DEFENDANTS IN THIS ACTION ON A PROMISSORY NOTE (SECOND DEPT). ​
Supreme Court Erred by Making Dispositive Rulings on Grounds Not Raised in the Motion Papers

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

THE ENDORSEMENT RELIED UPON BY THE DEFENDANT INSURER TO EXCLUDE COVERAGE FOR... SUPREME COURT ADDRESSED THE MERITS OF THE ACTION WITHOUT DISCOVERY AND TRIAL;...