Razza v. Sanchez-Roda

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Razza v. Sanchez-Roda

173 A.D.2d 594, 570 N.Y.S.2d 272, 1991 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 7649

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

DecidedMay 20, 1991

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 173 A.D.2d 594 (Razza v. Sanchez-Roda) 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

Razza v. Sanchez-Roda, 173 A.D.2d 594, 570 N.Y.S.2d 272, 1991 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 7649 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1991).

Pincite

Opinion

In a negligence action to recover damages for personal injuries, the defendants appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Nassau County (Murphy, J.), dated October 7, 1988, which granted the plaintiff’s motion pursuant to CPLR 4404 (a) and, in effect, set aside a jury verdict which was in her favor and against the defendants in the principal sum of $10,000, and directed a new trial.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, without costs or disbursements.

The record reveals that, during the trial of this action by the plaintiff to recover for injuries which she allegedly suffered in a 1984 automobile accident, the court ruled that a proposed defense exhibit was inadmissible because it was irrelevant to the issues in the case. This proposed exhibit consisted of a claim for employee disability benefits prepared by the plaintiff for apparently sitnilar injuries which she [595]*595purportedly suffered in another accident in 1982. After the jury commenced deliberations, the proposed exhibit inadvertently was sent into the deliberations room. Subsequent to rendering a verdict in favor of the plaintiff in the amount of $10,000, all of the jurors indicated, that despite the trial court’s instructions, they had considered the document in determining their award to the plaintiff. The court then granted the plaintiff’s motion for an order setting aside the verdict and for a new trial. We affirm.

Contrary to the defendants’ contention, the court did not improvidently exercise its discretion in setting aside the verdict under the unusual circumstances of this case (see generally, Micallef v Miehl Co., 39 NY2d 376), inasmuch as the record demonstrates that the submission of the document previously held inadmissible substantially affected the verdict (see, e.g., Stanton v City of New York, 74 AD2d 623). The defendants claim that the document was in fact relevant and admissible and that the verdict therefore should remain undisturbed. However, while we agree that the document appears relevant on its face, the court’s ruling that it was inadmissible prevented the plaintiff from adducing any further evidence to rebut or explain its contents. Accordingly, a new trial is necessary.

We have considered the defendants’ remaining contentions and find them to be without merit. Kooper, J. P., Sullivan, Harwood and Rosenblatt, JJ., concur.

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

In a negligence action to recover damages for personal injuries, the defendants appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Nassau County (Murphy, J.), dated October 7, 1988, which granted the plaintiff’s motion pursuant to CPLR 4404 (a) and, in effect, set aside a jury verdict which was in her favor and against the defendants in the principal sum of $10,000, and directed a new trial.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, without costs or disbursements.

The record reveals that, during the trial of this action by the plaintiff to recover for injuries which she allegedly suffered in a 1984 automobile accident, the court ruled that a proposed defense exhibit was inadmissible because it was irrelevant to the issues in the case. This proposed exhibit consisted of a claim for employee disability benefits prepared by the plaintiff for apparently sitnilar injuries which she [595]*595purportedly suffered in another accident in 1982. After the jury commenced deliberations, the proposed exhibit inadvertently was sent into the deliberations room. Subsequent to rendering a verdict in favor of the plaintiff in the amount of $10,000, all of the jurors indicated, that despite the trial court’s instructions, they had considered the document in determining their award to the plaintiff. The court then granted the plaintiff’s motion for an order setting aside the verdict and for a new trial. We affirm.

Contrary to the defendants’ contention, the court did not improvidently exercise its discretion in setting aside the verdict under the unusual circumstances of this case (see generally, Micallef v Miehl Co., 39 NY2d 376), inasmuch as the record demonstrates that the submission of the document previously held inadmissible substantially affected the verdict (see, e.g., Stanton v City of New York, 74 AD2d 623). The defendants claim that the document was in fact relevant and admissible and that the verdict therefore should remain undisturbed. However, while we agree that the document appears relevant on its face, the court’s ruling that it was inadmissible prevented the plaintiff from adducing any further evidence to rebut or explain its contents. Accordingly, a new trial is necessary.

We have considered the defendants’ remaining contentions and find them to be without merit. Kooper, J. P., Sullivan, Harwood and Rosenblatt, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

173 A.D.2d 594, 570 N.Y.S.2d 272, 1991 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 7649, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/razza-v-sanchez-roda-nyappdiv-1991.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack