From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Relyea v. Schuylerville Central School Dist

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Third Department
Oct 26, 1978
65 A.D.2d 672 (N.Y. App. Div. 1978)

Opinion

October 26, 1978


Appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, entered October 20, 1977 in Saratoga County, which set aside a verdict in favor of defendant rendered at Trial Term and granted a new trial. Following the trial of plaintiff's claim for damages based on the alleged negligence of the school district, the jury, with one member dissenting, returned a verdict of no cause of action. Shortly thereafter, plaintiff's counsel informed the Trial Judge that the dissenting juror had certain information which established that the verdict was unfair. The Trial Judge questioned the juror and thereafter interviewed the remaining jurors. These interviews revealed that during the deliberations the jurors had discussed insurance and whether the school district would have to pay plaintiff's medical expenses. One juror also admitted her past membership in a Parent-Teacher Association (PTA). Upon plaintiff's motion, the Trial Judge set aside the verdict and ordered a new trial based upon the information revealed by the jurors. Assuming that plaintiff's motion was timely and brought on in the proper fashion, the Trial Judge erred in granting the motion based upon testimony of the jurors concerning their secret and confidential deliberations. The long-established rule, based on policy reasons, is that testimony of jurors is not competent to impeach their duly rendered verdict (People v De Lucia, 20 N.Y.2d 275; People v Sprague, 217 N.Y. 373; Glessner v Lafayette Post No. 37 of Amer. Legion, Dept. of N.Y., 50 Misc.2d 1059, affd 28 A.D.2d 648; see, also, MCDonald v Pless, 238 U.S. 264). Although there are exceptions (see, e.g., People v De Lucia, supra; Rose v Thau, 45 A.D.2d 182), we find the facts of this case to fall within the general rule. Moreover, we perceive no prejudice in juror Collins' unintentional failure to disclose that she was a former member of a PTA not connected with the defendant school district. Order reversed, on the law, without costs, verdict reinstated and complaint dismissed. Mahoney, P.J., Greenblott, Sweeney, Staley, Jr., and Main, JJ., concur.


Summaries of

Relyea v. Schuylerville Central School Dist

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Third Department
Oct 26, 1978
65 A.D.2d 672 (N.Y. App. Div. 1978)
Case details for

Relyea v. Schuylerville Central School Dist

Case Details

Full title:ROBERT RELYEA, JR., an Infant by ROBERT RELYEA, SR., as His Father and…

Court:Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Third Department

Date published: Oct 26, 1978

Citations

65 A.D.2d 672 (N.Y. App. Div. 1978)

Citing Cases

Wingate v. Long Island Railroad

The words "entitled to" generally carry the connotation that they refer to the net sum to be awarded to…

Wingate v. Long Island Railroad

The words "entitled to" generally carry the connotation that they refer to the net sum to be awarded to…