You are here: / / DENIAL OF A FOR CAUSE CHALLENGE TO A JUROR WHO SAID IT WOULD BE DIFFICULT...

DENIAL OF A FOR CAUSE CHALLENGE TO A JUROR WHO SAID IT WOULD BE DIFFICULT TO REACH A VERDICT WITHOUT HEARING FROM THE DEFENDANT REQUIRED REVERSAL (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined that defendant’s for cause challenge to a juror who stated she wanted to hear from the defendant should have been granted:

… [T]he court erred in denying defendant’s challenge for cause to a prospective juror who stated that her belief in “hearing both sides of the story” would make it difficult for her to reach a verdict “without hearing from the defendant,” and who was repeatedly unable to give an equivocal assurance that she would follow the law as charged by the court. People v Rivera, 2018 NY Slip Op 08750, First Dept 12-20-18

 

You might also like
NO OBLIGATION TO CONTINUOUSLY MOP UP TRACKED IN WATER.
DEFENDANT DID NOT UPDATE ITS ADDRESS FILED WITH THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR SERVICE OF PROCESS AND DID NOT HAVE A REASONABLE EXCUSE FOR DEFAULT IN THIS SLIP AND FALL CASE; HOWEVER, NO REASONABLE EXCUSE NEED BE SHOWN IN A MOTION TO VACATE A DEFAULT PURSUANT TO CPLR 317; DEFAULT VACATED (FIRST DEPT).
THERE WERE QUESTIONS OF FACT WHETHER A RAISED MANHOLE COVER, EXPOSED WHEN THE ROAD SURFACE AROUND THE MANHOLE WAS MILLED IN PREPARATION FOR REPAVING, CONSTITUTED A DANGEROUS CONDITION CREATED BY THE CITY AND WHETHER THE CONDITION WAS OPEN AND OBVIOUS (FIRST DEPT).
In a Hybrid Action, the Causes of Action Seeking Money Damages Were Distinct from the Causes of Action Seeking Annulment of Town a Resolution/Four-Month Statute of Limitations Did Not Apply to Causes of Action Seeking Money Damages
A VERDICT FINDING DEFENDANT GUILTY OF GRAND LARCENY BUT NOT GUILTY OF POSSESSION OF STOLEN PROPERTY WOULD NOT BE REPUGNANT; INSTRUCTING THE JURY OTHERWISE WAS REVERSIBLE ERROR.
ALTHOUGH THE EXCUSE WAS NOT ADEQUATE PETITIONER’S APPLICATION FOR LEAVE TO FILE A LATE NOTICE OF CLAIM SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED; RESPONDENTS HAD TIMELY NOTICE OF THE INCIDENT AND DEMONSTRATED NO PREJUDICE FROM THE DELAY (FIRST DEPT).
PLAINTIFF ALLEGEDLY SLIPPED AND FELL AFTER STEPPING ON A BOTTLE CAP; PLAINTIFF’S LABOR LAW 241 (6) AND 200 CAUSES OF ACTION SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN DISMISSED (FIRST DEPT).
THE MENTAL HYGIENE LAW DOES NOT REQUIRE A TESTIMONIAL HEARING BEFORE THE REMOVAL OF A GUARDIAN FOR AN INCAPACITATED PERSON (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 © 2025 New York Appellate Digest, Inc.
Site by CurlyHost | Privacy Policy

DEFENSE COUNSEL’S FAILURE TO OBTAIN EXPERT OPINION EVIDENCE CONSTITUTED... PROPERTY OWNER DID NOT DEMONSTRATE A LACK OF CONSTRUCTIVE KNOWLEDGE OF THE SNOW...