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

CourtNew York Court of Appeals

DecidedMay 13, 1982

StatusPublished

Cited by7 cases

This text of 437 N.E.2d 274 (Arizmendi v. City of New York) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering New York Court of Appeals primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

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

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.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

437 N.E.2d 274, 56 N.Y.2d 753, 452 N.Y.S.2d 15, 1982 N.Y. LEXIS 3404, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/arizmendi-v-city-of-new-york-ny-1982.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack