For good reason, a movant has an uphill battle when seeking to set aside a civil jury verdict. Sometimes jurors will speak to the trial attorneys after the proceedings have terminated. Feedback from jurors is invaluable.
What happens when a juror tells you something that could have compromised the deliberations process?
The recent New York Supreme Court, Kings County decision—Nunez v 678 St. Marks Management, LLC—concerned, among other things, potential juror misconduct. The issue arose in a personal-injury action concerning a serious injury the plaintiff sustained to his eye while working on the defendant's construction site. The jury found for the plaintiff and awarded $1.8 million for past pain and suffering and $2.7 million for future pain and suffering.
After the verdict, the foreperson spoke with counsel for both parties and stated that he had brief, prior construction experience. The defendant's counsel alleges that the foreperson stated that he hoped the damages verdict would "send a message" to the property owners, such as the defendants in the case, and that property owners "need to be held accountable." The defendant included this information in an attorney affirmation and moved to set aside the jury verdict in the interest of justice based on alleged juror misconduct.
The trial court denied the defendant's motion to set aside the verdict based on CPLR § 4404 (a), noting that the attorney affirmation and supporting documents "speculate as to the juror's meaning and their motivations and machinations during jury deliberations." The trial court's description of the motion telegraphed the outcome, stating, "[The] [d]efendant seeks to upend a unanimous jury verdict based on a single affirmation, containing two ambiguous quotations from a single juror and an attorney's impression of a post-verdict conversation with that juror."
The trial court cited Appellate Division, Second Department precedent, which "has held that a juror's hearsay statements, relayed to the Court in an attorney affirmation, is insufficient evidence to impeach a jury verdict . . . ." The defendant's sole evidence of juror misconduct is the affirmation of an attorney who was present and spoke with juror after they were released from duty following the trial. Notably, the attorney did not bring the issue to the Court's attorney just after the conversation.
The trial court cited caselaw stating absent exceptional circumstances, a juror's testimony on affidavit may not be used to attach a jury verdict. Accordingly, the trial court concluded that an attorney affirmation providing hearsay statements from a juror similarly requires exceptional circumstances to justify setting aside a unanimous jury verdict. The trial court characterized the foreperson's statements as "unexceptional" and "not definitive proof of juror misconduct."
Would the trial court have held differently if the defense attorney had immediately raised the issue to the trial court upon speaking to the foreperson? I don't think so, especially if the court had already discharged the jurors. What do you think?
New York Civil Law will follow the case and report on an appellate decision.