Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Randall K. Best and Corinne Best, Plaintiffs-Respondents v. Swan Group Limited Partnership

February 10, 2011

RANDALL K. BEST AND CORINNE BEST, PLAINTIFFS-RESPONDENTS,
v.
SWAN GROUP LIMITED PARTNERSHIP, SWAN GROUP LIMITED PARTNERSHIP, DOING BUSINESS AS ELLICOTT PARKING, AND ELLICOTT DEVELOPMENT COMPANY, LLC, DEFENDANTS-APPELLANTS.



Appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Erie County (Frederick J. Marshall, J.), entered January 6, 2010 in a personal injury action. The order, among other things, set aside the jury's verdict on the issue of damages and ordered a new trial on that issue.

Best v Swan Group Ltd. Partnership

Appellate Division, Fourth Department Published by New York State Law Reporting Bureau pursuant to Judiciary Law § 431.

This opinion is uncorrected and subject to revision before publication in the Official Reports.

Decided on February 10, 2011

PRESENT: SMITH, J.P., CENTRA, FAHEY, AND GREEN, JJ.

It is hereby ORDERED that the order so appealed from is unanimously affirmed without costs.

Memorandum: Supreme Court properly granted plaintiffs' motion to set aside the verdict on damages and for a new trial (see CPLR 4404 [a]). The record establishes that the court failed to instruct the jury to disregard its apportionment of fault in calculating the amount of damages (see PJI 2:36.2). That error was so fundamental as to preclude a proper consideration of the issue of damages (see Hoffman v Domenico Bus Serv., 183 AD2d 807; see generally Kelly v Tarnowski, 213 AD2d 1054). Consequently, the court properly determined that a new trial limited to the issue of damages is appropriate (see Flanagan v Southside Hosp., 251 AD2d 447, 448-449; Hoffman, 183 AD2d 807; McStocker v Kolment, 160 AD2d 980, 981). Finally, we note that defendants are correct in contending that "the use of [juror] affidavits for the purpose of exploring the deliberative processes of the jury and impeaching its verdict is patently improper" (Hoffman, 183 AD2d at 808; see Phelinger v Krawczyk, 37 AD3d 1153; see generally Kaufman v Eli Lilly & Co., 65 NY2d 449, 460), and we therefore have not considered the juror affidavits contained in the record in reaching our determination. Entered: February 10, 2011 Patricia L. Morgan Clerk of the Court

20110210

© 1992-2011 VersusLaw ...

Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.