Epes v. Healey

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Epes v. Healey

226 A.D.2d 581, 641 N.Y.S.2d 344, 1996 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4359

CourtAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York

DecidedApril 22, 1996

StatusPublished

This text of 226 A.D.2d 581 (Epes v. Healey) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Epes v. Healey, 226 A.D.2d 581, 641 N.Y.S.2d 344, 1996 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4359 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1996).

Pincite

Opinion

In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, etc., the plaintiffs appeal from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Lonschein, J.), dated January 17,1995, which, upon a jury verdict in favor of the defendants, dismissed the complaint.

Ordered that the judgment is reversed, on the law, with costs, and the complaint is reinstated.

When charging a jury, " '[t]o say to a minority that they should re-examine their views in the light of the opinion held by the majority, without putting a like duty on the majority respecting the opinion of the minority, is wrong. The minority may be right and the majority wrong’ ” (Field v Field, 283 App Div 372, 374, quoting Acunto v Equitable Life Assur. Socy., 270 App Div 386, 388; see also, People v Henry, 56 AD2d 610). In this case, the Supreme Court improperly directed the jurors in the minority "to think a little bit to see why you’re in the minority when other jurors who are equally intelligent as you [582]*582have a different view. Maybe if you take that tact [sic] * * * you might be in a position possibly to change your mind about the verdict.” This attempt to coerce the jurors should have been avoided (see, People v Sheldon, 156 NY 268, 282) and requires reversal (see, People v Tempera, 94 AD2d 748; People v Robinson, 84 AD2d 732; Field v Field, supra).

The parties’ remaining contentions are academic in light of our determination. Sullivan, J. P., Pizzuto, Joy and Krausman, JJ., concur.

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

In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, etc., the plaintiffs appeal from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Lonschein, J.), dated January 17,1995, which, upon a jury verdict in favor of the defendants, dismissed the complaint.

Ordered that the judgment is reversed, on the law, with costs, and the complaint is reinstated.

When charging a jury, " '[t]o say to a minority that they should re-examine their views in the light of the opinion held by the majority, without putting a like duty on the majority respecting the opinion of the minority, is wrong. The minority may be right and the majority wrong’ ” (Field v Field, 283 App Div 372, 374, quoting Acunto v Equitable Life Assur. Socy., 270 App Div 386, 388; see also, People v Henry, 56 AD2d 610). In this case, the Supreme Court improperly directed the jurors in the minority "to think a little bit to see why you’re in the minority when other jurors who are equally intelligent as you [582]*582have a different view. Maybe if you take that tact [sic] * * * you might be in a position possibly to change your mind about the verdict.” This attempt to coerce the jurors should have been avoided (see, People v Sheldon, 156 NY 268, 282) and requires reversal (see, People v Tempera, 94 AD2d 748; People v Robinson, 84 AD2d 732; Field v Field, supra).

The parties’ remaining contentions are academic in light of our determination. Sullivan, J. P., Pizzuto, Joy and Krausman, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

226 A.D.2d 581, 641 N.Y.S.2d 344, 1996 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4359, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/epes-v-healey-nyappdiv-1996.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack