Moore v. John Bohlsen Associates, Inc.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Moore v. John Bohlsen Associates, Inc.

141 A.D.2d 468, 530 N.Y.S.2d 6, 1988 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 7234

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

DecidedJune 30, 1988

StatusPublished

Cited by8 cases

This text of 141 A.D.2d 468 (Moore v. John Bohlsen Associates, Inc.) 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

Moore v. John Bohlsen Associates, Inc., 141 A.D.2d 468, 530 N.Y.S.2d 6, 1988 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 7234 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1988).

Pincite

Opinion

Order Supreme Court, New York County (Alfred Ascione, J.), entered May 8, 1986, which granted plaintiff’s motion to set aside the verdict and directed a new trial on all issues, unanimously modified, on the law and facts, to the extent of remanding for a new trial on the issue of total damages only, and otherwise affirmed, without costs.

Our examination of the record reveals that the special verdict sheet was, on its face, "unclear and confusing so as to create an issue as [to the] precise amount the jury intended to finally award the plaintiff”. (Wingate v Long Is. R. R., 92 AD2d 797, 798.)

While we do not disturb the apportionment of fault, which neither party places in issue, we hold that the confusing and ambiguous wording of the verdict sheet serves to confirm the trial court’s conclusion that the jurors experienced substantial confusion in reaching their verdict. A new trial solely on the issue of total damages, to which the present apportionment shall be applied, is, therefore, in order. (See, Pache v Boehm, 60 AD2d 867.) Concur — Sandler, J. P., Ross, Asch, Kassal and Ellerin, JJ.

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

Order Supreme Court, New York County (Alfred Ascione, J.), entered May 8, 1986, which granted plaintiff’s motion to set aside the verdict and directed a new trial on all issues, unanimously modified, on the law and facts, to the extent of remanding for a new trial on the issue of total damages only, and otherwise affirmed, without costs.

Our examination of the record reveals that the special verdict sheet was, on its face, "unclear and confusing so as to create an issue as [to the] precise amount the jury intended to finally award the plaintiff”. (Wingate v Long Is. R. R., 92 AD2d 797, 798.)

While we do not disturb the apportionment of fault, which neither party places in issue, we hold that the confusing and ambiguous wording of the verdict sheet serves to confirm the trial court’s conclusion that the jurors experienced substantial confusion in reaching their verdict. A new trial solely on the issue of total damages, to which the present apportionment shall be applied, is, therefore, in order. (See, Pache v Boehm, 60 AD2d 867.) Concur — Sandler, J. P., Ross, Asch, Kassal and Ellerin, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

141 A.D.2d 468, 530 N.Y.S.2d 6, 1988 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 7234, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/moore-v-john-bohlsen-associates-inc-nyappdiv-1988.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack