Holstein v. Community General Hospital of Greater Syracuse

980 N.E.2d 523, 20 N.Y.3d 892
CourtNew York Court of Appeals
DecidedNovember 20, 2012
StatusPublished
Cited by9 cases

This text of 980 N.E.2d 523 (Holstein v. Community General Hospital of Greater Syracuse) 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
Holstein v. Community General Hospital of Greater Syracuse, 980 N.E.2d 523, 20 N.Y.3d 892 (N.Y. 2012).

Opinion

OPINION OF THE COURT

Memorandum.

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

Plaintiff Tina Holstein commenced this medical malpractice action seeking damages for injuries she sustained based on the [893]*893alleged negligence of an employee of defendant Community General Hospital of Greater Syracuse (the Hospital). Following trial, the jury returned a verdict on liability, by a vote of five to one, in favor of Holstein and awarded approximately $1.7 million in damages. After the verdict was announced, the Hospital requested that the jury be polled. In response, the court remarked: “Jury be polled? They have signed. They each have individually signed.” The Hospital’s counsel stated: “Okay. All right. Thank you” and the jury was dismissed. Two weeks later, the Hospital moved to set aside the verdict and requested a new trial. Supreme Court denied the motion and the Appellate Division affirmed Supreme Court’s judgment awarding plaintiff damages (86 AD3d 911 [4th Dept 2011]).

In Duffy v Vogel, we held that a party has an absolute right to poll the jury and a court’s denial of that right mandates reversal and a new trial (12 NY3d 169, 176-177 [2009]). In this case, however, it was not unreasonable for the trial court to conclude that the request had been withdrawn or waived in light of the nature of counsel’s response to the judge’s inquiry.

Chief Judge Lippman and Judges Ciparick, Graffeo, Read, Smith and Pigott concur.

Order affirmed, with costs, in a memorandum.

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

Related

Rosenthal v. Sperling
2024 NY Slip Op 06173 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2024)
Caldwell v. New York City Tr. Auth.
2021 NY Slip Op 07537 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2021)
Fitzgerald v. Kula
2021 NY Slip Op 04452 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2021)
Rueda v. Elmhurst Woodside, LLC
2020 NY Slip Op 05789 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2020)
Monzon v. Porter
2019 NY Slip Op 4855 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2019)
SCHULTZ, DONALD v. EXCELSIOR ORTHOPAEDICS, LLP
129 A.D.3d 1606 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2015)
MAZELLA, JANICE v. BEALS, M.D., WILLIAM
Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2014
Mazella v. Beals
122 A.D.3d 1358 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2014)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
980 N.E.2d 523, 20 N.Y.3d 892, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/holstein-v-community-general-hospital-of-greater-syracuse-ny-2012.