You are here: / / THE REFUSAL OF DEFENDANT’S REQUEST TO POLL THE JURY REQUIRED A NEW...

THE REFUSAL OF DEFENDANT’S REQUEST TO POLL THE JURY REQUIRED A NEW TRIAL (FOURTH DEPT).

The Fourth Department, reversing the judgment, determined defendant’s request to poll the jury should not have been denied:

Plaintiff commenced this action seeking damages for, inter alia, assault and battery, and in his amended answer defendant asserted counterclaims for, inter alia, defamation. The matter proceeded to trial, and now plaintiff appeals and defendant cross-appeals from an order and judgment of Supreme Court that denied the parties’ respective motions to set aside portions of the jury verdict and, upon the jury verdict, awarded damages both to plaintiff and to defendant. We reverse.

We agree with defendant on his cross appeal that the court erred in denying his request to poll the jury. “A party has an absolute right to poll the jury, and a court’s denial of that right mandates reversal and a new trial” … . We therefore reverse the order and judgment and remit the matter to Supreme Court for a new trial … . Fitzgerald v Kula, 2021 NY Slip Op 04452, Fourth Dept 7-16-21

 

You might also like
THE LEVEL-THREE RISK ASSESSMENT WAS NOT MANDATORY AND THE EVIDENCE IN SUPPORT OF A DOWNWARD DEPARTURE SHOULD HAVE BEEN CONSIDERED; ON REMAND WRITTEN FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW ARE REQUIRED (FOURTH DEPT).
THE CHOICE OF FORUM CLAUSE (ARIZONA) IN THE CONTRACT IS ENFORCEABLE AND IS NOT AFFECTED BY AN ARGUMENT QUESTIONING THE VALIDITY OF A CHOICE OF LAW CLAUSE; THE FACT THAT THE NEW YORK PLAINTIFF WILL HAVE TO TRAVEL TO ARIZONA DOES NOT AFFECT THE ENFORCEABILITY OF THE CHOICE OF FORUM CLAUSE (FOURTH DEPT).
Larceny Jury Instruction Shifted Burden of Proof to Defendant—Reversal Required In Absence of Preservation of the Error
Motion to Vacate Conviction Should Not Have Been Granted—Hearsay Statement Exonerating Defendant Did Not Meet the Criteria for a Statement Against Penal Interest and Should Not Have Been Admitted—The Underlying Evidence Was Not Newly Discovered Because Defendant Was Aware of It at the Time of Trial–Defendant Did Not Provide the Evidence at Trial Because He Feared Retaliation by Gang Members
NO SHOWING A REASONABLE RETURN ON THE PROPERTY WAS NOT POSSIBLE WITH A CONFORMING USE, USE VARIANCE SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED.
THE PEOPLE DID NOT DEMONSTRATE THE POLICE OFFICER HAD SUFFICIENT TRAINING AND EXPERIENCE TO VISUALLY ESTIMATE THE SPEED OF DEFENDANT’S CAR; SUPPRESSION SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED IN THIS SPEEDING CASE (FOURTH DEPT).
AN APPELLATE COURT HAS THE POWER TO CONSIDER A REQUEST FOR A DECLARATORY JUDGMENT WHICH WAS NOT BEFORE THE MOTION COURT; THE REGULATION MANDATING CERTAIN VACCINES DOES NOT VIOLATE THE SEPARATION OF POWERS DOCTRINE OR EXCEED THE REGULATORY POWERS OF THE NYS DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH (FOURTH DEPT).
Motion Papers Sufficient to Warrant a Probable Cause Hearing, Criteria Described

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 ATTORNEY’S EMAIL WAS AN ENFORCEABLE STIPULATION OF SETTLEMENT;... FAMILY COURT’S FAILURE TO CONSIDER THE PSYCHOLOGICAL EVALUATIONS OF THE...