You are here: / / ALLEGED ATTORNEY MISCONDUCT DID NOT WARRANT SETTING ASIDE THE OVER $21...
, , ,

ALLEGED ATTORNEY MISCONDUCT DID NOT WARRANT SETTING ASIDE THE OVER $21 MILLION VERDICT IN THIS MEDICAL MALPRACTICE CASE; SUPREME COURT REVERSED (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined defendant’s motion to set aside the verdict based upon the conduct of plaintiff’s counsel should not have been granted in this medical malpractice action. Plaintiff suffered a brain injury rendering him unable to take care of himself and was awarded over $21 million:

… [W]e conclude that the Supreme Court improvidently exercised its discretion in ordering a new trial in the interest of justice based upon attorney misconduct. Some of the challenged conduct was improper, and we do not condone it … . However, “where counsel, in summing up, exceeds the bounds of legal propriety, it is the duty of the opposing counsel to make a specific objection and for the court to rule on the objection, to direct the jury to disregard any improper remarks, and to admonish counsel from repetition of improper remarks” … . Here, defense counsel did not object to the challenged remarks during summation or request a curative instruction, thus depriving the court of the opportunity to direct the jury to disregard improper remarks or give other curative instructions, and to avoid further error … . “Where no objection is interposed, a new trial may be directed only where the remarks are so prejudicial as to have caused a gross injustice, and where the comments are so pervasive, prejudicial, or inflammatory as to deprive a party of a fair trial” … . The misconduct of the plaintiff’s counsel in the instant case was not so pervasive or prejudicial as to have deprived the defendant of a fair trial, or to have affected the verdict, particularly in light of the strength of the plaintiff’s case … .  Accordingly, we deny that branch of the defendant’s motion pursuant to CPLR 4404(a) which was to set aside the verdict and for a new trial in the interest of justice, and reinstate the verdict. Yu v New York City Health & Hosps. Corp., 2021 NY Slip Op 08215, Second Dept 2-24-21

 

You might also like
THERE WAS EVIDENCE DEFENDANTS’ EMPLOYEES DIRECTED TRUCKS TO DRIVE OVER THE DEFECTIVE SIDEWALK WHERE PLAINTIFF SLIPPED AND FELL, RAISING A QUESTION OF FACT WHETHER DEFENDANTS CREATED THE SIDEWALK DEFECT (SECOND DEPT).
Mitigating Factor (12 Years Since Release) Did Not Warrant Downward Departure in SORA Proceeding
SUN GLARE DID NOT CREATE AN EMERGENCY FOR THE BUS DRIVER WHO STRUCK PLAINTIFF PEDESTRIAN (SECOND DEPT).
QUESTIONS OF FACT WERE RAISED ABOUT DEFENDANT CON ED’S AUTHORITY AND RESPONSIBILITIES IN THIS LABOR LAW 241 (6) AND 200 ACTION, IN PART BY THE TERMS OF A CONTRACT, CON ED’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED, PLAINTIFF WAS USING AN EXCAVATOR WHEN IT TIPPED OVER INTO A CREEK (SECOND DEPT).
HERE THE SUBPOENAS SEEKING DISCOVERY FROM A NONPARTY WERE DEFECTIVE IN THAT THEY DID NOT EXPLAIN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OR REASONS FOR THE REQUESTED DISCLOSURE; THEREFORE THE MOTION TO QUASH THE SUBPOENAS SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED WITHOUT ANY NEED ON THE PART OF THE MOVANT TO DEMONSTRATE THE SOUGHT DISCLOSURE IS IRRELEVANT OR FUTILE (SECOND DEPT).
QUESTION OF FACT WHETHER PLAINTIFF’S ACTIONS CONSTITUTED THE SOLE PROXIMATE CAUSE OF HIS INJURIES IN THIS LABOR LAW 240(1) ACTION (SECOND DEPT).
JUDGE DEPRIVED DEFENDANT OF A FAIR TRIAL BY ASKING QUESTIONS OF WITNESSES AND INTERRUPTING CROSS-EXAMINATION (SECOND DEPT).
ALTHOUGH MOTHER WAS GENERALLY AWARE FATHER HAD MOVED TO DELAWARE, FATHER DID NOT SPECIFY AN AGENT FOR SERVICE AS REQUIRED BY THE FAMILY COURT ACT; THEREFORE SERVICE OF MOTHER’S OBJECTIONS TO THE SUPPORT MAGISTRATE’S ORDER AT FATHER’S LAST KNOWN ADDRESS WAS PROPER (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 © 2026 New York Appellate Digest, Inc.
Site by CurlyHost | Privacy Policy

DEFENDANT’S MOTION TO WITHDRAW HIS PLEA WAS MADE PURSUANT TO CPL 220.60,... QUESTION OF FACT WHETHER AN OPEN AND OBVIOUS CONDITION–A STEEP EMBANKMENT...