Ricchueto v. County of Monroe

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Ricchueto v. County of Monroe

267 A.D.2d 1012, 701 N.Y.S.2d 550, 1999 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 13758

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

DecidedDecember 30, 1999

StatusPublished

Cited by3 cases

This text of 267 A.D.2d 1012 (Ricchueto v. County of Monroe) 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

Ricchueto v. County of Monroe, 267 A.D.2d 1012, 701 N.Y.S.2d 550, 1999 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 13758 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1999).

Pincite

Opinion

—Order unanimously affirmed without costs. Memorandum: Supreme Court did not abuse its discretion in denying plaintiff’s posttrial motion for judgment on liability and a new trial with respect to damages. Following deliberations, the jury foreperson informed the court that the jury was deadlocked. The special verdict questionnaire establishes that five of the six jurors agreed that defendant was negligent and that such negligence was a proximate cause of the accident; that the jury unanimously agreed that plaintiff also was negligent; and that five of the six jurors agreed that plaintiff and defendant were each 50% at fault. Only the issue of damages was undecided. Plaintiff was not entitled, however, to judgment on liability and a new trial on damages. The jury did not announce its verdict in open court, members of the jury were not polled, and plaintiff has not shown that the verdict was entered in the minutes by the Clerk (see, CPLR 4112). Under the circumstances, there is no jury verdict upon which the court could grant judgment (see, Warner v New York Cent. R. R. Co., 52 NY 437; Labar v Koplin, 4 NY 547, 550-551; Sylvester v New York City Tr. Auth., 176 AD2d 314, 315; Brigham

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

—Order unanimously affirmed without costs. Memorandum: Supreme Court did not abuse its discretion in denying plaintiff’s posttrial motion for judgment on liability and a new trial with respect to damages. Following deliberations, the jury foreperson informed the court that the jury was deadlocked. The special verdict questionnaire establishes that five of the six jurors agreed that defendant was negligent and that such negligence was a proximate cause of the accident; that the jury unanimously agreed that plaintiff also was negligent; and that five of the six jurors agreed that plaintiff and defendant were each 50% at fault. Only the issue of damages was undecided. Plaintiff was not entitled, however, to judgment on liability and a new trial on damages. The jury did not announce its verdict in open court, members of the jury were not polled, and plaintiff has not shown that the verdict was entered in the minutes by the Clerk (see, CPLR 4112). Under the circumstances, there is no jury verdict upon which the court could grant judgment (see, Warner v New York Cent. R. R. Co., 52 NY 437; Labar v Koplin, 4 NY 547, 550-551; Sylvester v New York City Tr. Auth., 176 AD2d 314, 315; Brigham

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

267 A.D.2d 1012, 701 N.Y.S.2d 550, 1999 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 13758, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/ricchueto-v-county-of-monroe-nyappdiv-1999.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack