Pramer S.C.A. v. Abaplus International Corp.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Pramer S.C.A. v. Abaplus International Corp.

123 A.D.3d 474, 998 N.Y.S.2d 348

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

DecidedDecember 9, 2014

Docket13704 603336/04

StatusPublished

Cited by3 cases

This text of 123 A.D.3d 474 (Pramer S.C.A. v. Abaplus International Corp.) 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

Pramer S.C.A. v. Abaplus International Corp., 123 A.D.3d 474, 998 N.Y.S.2d 348 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2014).

Pincite

Opinion

Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Ira Gammerman, J.H.O.), entered May 9, 2013, after a jury verdict, finding against defendant on plaintiff’s breach of contract claim, and dismissing plaintiff’s claims of fraud, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

In answering “yes” to the yes or no question sent out by the jury during deliberations, the trial court responded meaningfully to the jury question (see People v Malloy, 55 NY2d 296, 301 [1982], cert denied 459 US 847 [1982]). The court’s charges on breach of contract and interested witness as to plaintiff’s principal were not prejudicial, nor was the language of the jury verdict sheet “suggestive” (compare Leonard v Davenport & Sons, 44 AD2d 781, 782 [1st Dept 1974]). Further, since none of the defendant’s employees were actors in the transactions at issue, or had a motive to shield themselves from blame, the court’s charge, which generally followed that of PJI 1:92, was appropriate. It was also proper for the trial court to find plaintiff’s explanation concerning missing documents insufficient to avoid that charge as a matter of law, and instead put the question to the jury (see e.g. Gogos v Modell's Sporting Goods, Inc., 87 AD3d 248, 254-255 [1st Dept 2011]).

Finally, “a trial court has broad authority to control the courtroom, rule on the admission of evidence, elicit and clarify testimony, expedite the proceedings and to admonish counsel and witnesses when necessary” (Campbell v Rogers & Wells, 218 AD2d 576, 579 [1995]), and the record contains no evidence of bias, or any other action on the part of the court that deprived plaintiff of a fair trial.

Concur — Sweeny, J.P., DeGrasse, Manzanet-Daniels, Feinman and Gische, JJ.

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

Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Ira Gammerman, J.H.O.), entered May 9, 2013, after a jury verdict, finding against defendant on plaintiff’s breach of contract claim, and dismissing plaintiff’s claims of fraud, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

In answering “yes” to the yes or no question sent out by the jury during deliberations, the trial court responded meaningfully to the jury question (see People v Malloy, 55 NY2d 296, 301 [1982], cert denied 459 US 847 [1982]). The court’s charges on breach of contract and interested witness as to plaintiff’s principal were not prejudicial, nor was the language of the jury verdict sheet “suggestive” (compare Leonard v Davenport & Sons, 44 AD2d 781, 782 [1st Dept 1974]). Further, since none of the defendant’s employees were actors in the transactions at issue, or had a motive to shield themselves from blame, the court’s charge, which generally followed that of PJI 1:92, was appropriate. It was also proper for the trial court to find plaintiff’s explanation concerning missing documents insufficient to avoid that charge as a matter of law, and instead put the question to the jury (see e.g. Gogos v Modell's Sporting Goods, Inc., 87 AD3d 248, 254-255 [1st Dept 2011]).

Finally, “a trial court has broad authority to control the courtroom, rule on the admission of evidence, elicit and clarify testimony, expedite the proceedings and to admonish counsel and witnesses when necessary” (Campbell v Rogers & Wells, 218 AD2d 576, 579 [1995]), and the record contains no evidence of bias, or any other action on the part of the court that deprived plaintiff of a fair trial.

Concur — Sweeny, J.P., DeGrasse, Manzanet-Daniels, Feinman and Gische, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

123 A.D.3d 474, 998 N.Y.S.2d 348, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/pramer-sca-v-abaplus-international-corp-nyappdiv-2014.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack