You are here: / / ALTHOUGH SUPREME COURT CORRECTLY SET ASIDE THE VERDICT AS THE PRODUCT OF...

ALTHOUGH SUPREME COURT CORRECTLY SET ASIDE THE VERDICT AS THE PRODUCT OF SUBSTANTIAL CONFUSION, SUPREME COURT DID NOT HAVE THE POWER TO “REINSTATE” A PRIOR VERDICT THAT HAD NOT BEEN REPORTED TO THE JUDGE.

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined Supreme Court did not have the power to “reinstate” a “verdict” that had not been recorded in open court. When the jury first announced they had a verdict, the court officer, without reporting the verdict to the judge, handed the verdict sheet back to the jurors, pointing to directions on the sheet. After the judge accepted a subsequent verdict, the court officer informed the judge of the prior “verdict” and his interaction with the jurors:

“[A] trial court has discretion to set aside a verdict which is clearly the product of substantial confusion among the jurors” … . Here, the Supreme Court providently exercised its discretion in setting aside the jury’s verdict on the basis that it was the product of substantial confusion. However, the court erred in attempting to “reinstate” the jury’s original verdict as reported by the court officer. ” A verdict is not recognized as valid and final until it is pronounced and recorded in open court'” … . Under these circumstances, upon setting aside the verdict, the court should have granted the branch of the defendant’s motion which was for a new trial … . Kitenberg v Gulmatico, 2016 NY Slip Op 07004, 2nd Dept 10-26-16

CIVIL PROCEDURE (ALTHOUGH SUPREME COURT CORRECTLY SET ASIDE THE VERDICT AS THE PRODUCT OF SUBSTANTIAL CONFUSION, SUPREME COURT DID NOT HAVE THE POWER TO “REINSTATE” A PRIOR VERDICT THAT HAD NOT BEEN REPORTED TO THE JUDGE)/VERDICTS (CIVIL, ALTHOUGH SUPREME COURT CORRECTLY SET ASIDE THE VERDICT AS THE PRODUCT OF SUBSTANTIAL CONFUSION, SUPREME COURT DID NOT HAVE THE POWER TO “REINSTATE” A PRIOR VERDICT THAT HAD NOT BEEN REPORTED TO THE JUDGE)/JUROR CONFUSION (VERDICTS, CIVIL, ALTHOUGH SUPREME COURT CORRECTLY SET ASIDE THE VERDICT AS THE PRODUCT OF SUBSTANTIAL CONFUSION, SUPREME COURT DID NOT HAVE THE POWER TO “REINSTATE” A PRIOR VERDICT THAT HAD NOT BEEN REPORTED TO THE JUDGE)

You might also like
THE “ABANDONMENT” EVIDENCE WAS NOT SUFFICIENT; MOTHER’S PARENTAL RIGHTS SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN TERMINATED (SECOND DEPT).
VEHICLE SOFT CLOSE AUTOMATIC DOOR CLOSING MECHANISM WAS REPLACED AND DESTROYED AFTER PLAINTIFF’S FINGER WAS ALLEGEDLY CRUSHED WHEN THE DOOR ON THE VAN CLOSED, PROPER SANCTION FOR SPOLIATION IS AN ADVERSE INFERENCE JURY INSTRUCTION (SECOND DEPT).
WHERE A TRIAL JUDGE DEMANDS A WAIVER OF APPEAL, THE JUDGE SHOULD PLACE HIS OR HER REASONS ON THE RECORD SO THE DEMAND IS NOT SEEN AS A TOOL FOR AVOIDING APPELLATE REVIEW; THE JUDGE-DEMANDED WAIVER WAS NOT ENFORCED IN THIS CASE (SECOND DEPT).
THE DESIGNATING PETITIONS INCLUDED THE NAMES OF CANDIDATES WHO DID NOT AGREE TO BE LISTED; THE PETITIONS WERE THEREFORE PROPERLY INVALIDATED ON THE GROUND OF FRAUD (SECOND DEPT).
IN LIGHT OF THE REVERSAL BY THE COURT OF APPEALS, PLAINTIFF HOME HEALTH CARE AIDES WERE NOT ENTITLED TO CLASS CERTIFICATION ON THE QUESTION WHETHER THEY SHOULD BE PAID FOR THE SLEEP AND BREAK HOURS DURING 24-HOUR SHIFTS (SECOND DEPT).
SUPREME COURT PROPERLY GRANTED DEFENDANTS’ MOTION TO SET ASIDE THE VERDICT IN THIS PERSONAL INJURY ACTION UNLESS PLAINTIFF STIPULATED TO A SUBSTANTIAL REDUCTION IN DAMAGES FOR PAST AND FUTURE PAIN AND SUFFERING (SECOND DEPT).
THE SUPPORT MAGISTRATE SHOULD HAVE INQUIRED FURTHER WHEN FATHER SAID HE WISHED TO HAVE AN ATTORNEY BUT COULD NOT AFFORD ONE; THE SUPPORT MAGISTRATE TOLD FATHER HE WAS NOT ENTITLED TO APPOINTED COUNSEL BECAUSE HE WAS WORKING; FATHER WAS DEPRIVED OF HIS RIGHT TO COUNSEL (SECOND DEPT).
FAMILY COURT SHOULD HAVE GRANTED THE GUARDIANSHIP PETITIONS AND MADE FINDINGS ENABLING THE CHILDREN TO APPLY FOR SPECIAL IMMIGRANT JUVENILE STATE (SIJS) (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

PLAINTIFFS’ EXPERTS PRESENTED SUFFICIENT PROOF TO WARRANT A FRYE HEARING... FAILURE TO FOLLOW STATUTORY SENTENCING PROCEDURES FOR A PERSISTENT FELONY OFFENDER...