Sreedharan v. Bronx Westchester Radiology, P. C.

252 A.D.2d 354, 675 N.Y.S.2d 534, 1998 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 7893
Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York·Decided July 2, 1998·Published·Cited by 1 cases

Opinion

—Order, Supreme Court, Bronx County (Lottie Wilkins, J.), entered January 4, 1996, which granted defendants’ motion pursuant to CPLR 4404 to the extent of setting aside a jury verdict in plaintiffs’ favor and directing a new trial, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

Under the circumstances of this case, the court acted appropriately in directing a new trial (see, e.g., Ayres v Hertz Corp., 83 AD2d 952). Despite efforts by the trial court to allow the jury to “alter its original statement so as to conform to its real intention” (Bernard v Seyopp Corp., 11 AD2d 140, 141, affd 9 NY2d 676, as quoted by Ryan v Orange County Fair Speedway, 227 AD2d 609, 611), the jury never made its inten[355] tions plain on the record (cf., Mayer v Goldberg, 241 AD2d 309). The court, then, fearing that repeated resubmission of the proximate cause issue had irremediably confused the jury, and not out of simple disagreement with the verdict (see, e.g., Mazariegos v New York City Tr. Auth., 230 AD2d 608, 609-610), properly set the jury’s verdict aside. Inasmuch as we are affirming the order, we do not reach defendants’ alternative arguments for a new trial. Concur — Sullivan, J. P., Milonas, Rubin, Williams and Andrias, JJ.

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

Sreedharan v. Bronx Westchester Radiology, P. C., 252 A.D.2d 354, 675 N.Y.S.2d 534, 1998 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 7893 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1998).

252 A.D.2d 354 (Sreedharan v. Bronx Westchester Radiology, P. C.) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Dinino v. D.A.T. Construction Corp.
267 A.D.2d 148 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1999)