Arizmendi v. City of New York

New York Court of Appeals

Arizmendi v. City of New York

437 N.E.2d 274, 56 N.Y.2d 753, 452 N.Y.S.2d 15, 1982 N.Y. LEXIS 3404

New York Court of Appeals·Decided May 13, 1982·Published·Cited by 7 cases

Opinion

OPINION OF THE COURT

Memorandum.

The order of the Appellate Division should be affirmed, with costs.

Appellants contend that they were effectively deprived of their constitutional guarantee of a jury of six persons when after a poll a juror revealed that he neither deliberated nor voted on the issue of damages because he was the sole dissenter on the issue of liability. Appellants first raised this claim, however, in connection with a posttrial motion to set aside the verdict. In that appellants failed to raise this objection before the jury was discharged and thereby afforded the trial court no opportunity to correct [755]*755the claimed error by returning the jury for additional deliberation on the issue of damages, appellants have waived their objection to the juror’s nonparticipation in deliberations or voting on that issue (Barry v Manglass, 55 NY2d 803, 806).

Chief Judge Cooke and Judges Jasen, Gabrielli, Jones, Wachtler, Fuchsberg and Meyer concur.

Order affirmed, with costs, in a memorandum.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

OPINION OF THE COURT

Memorandum.

The order of the Appellate Division should be affirmed, with costs.

Appellants contend that they were effectively deprived of their constitutional guarantee of a jury of six persons when after a poll a juror revealed that he neither deliberated nor voted on the issue of damages because he was the sole dissenter on the issue of liability. Appellants first raised this claim, however, in connection with a posttrial motion to set aside the verdict. In that appellants failed to raise this objection before the jury was discharged and thereby afforded the trial court no opportunity to correct [755]*755the claimed error by returning the jury for additional deliberation on the issue of damages, appellants have waived their objection to the juror’s nonparticipation in deliberations or voting on that issue (Barry v Manglass, 55 NY2d 803, 806).

Chief Judge Cooke and Judges Jasen, Gabrielli, Jones, Wachtler, Fuchsberg and Meyer concur.

Order affirmed, with costs, in a memorandum.

Arizmendi v. City of New York, 437 N.E.2d 274, 56 N.Y.2d 753, 452 N.Y.S.2d 15, 1982 N.Y. LEXIS 3404 (N.Y. 1982).

Pincite

437 N.E.2d 274 (Arizmendi v. City of New York) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related