Opinion
2014-12-9
PRAMER S.C.A., Plaintiff–Counterclaim Defendant–Respondent–Appellant, v. ABAPLUS INTERNATIONAL CORPORATION, Defendant–Counterclaim–Plaintiff–Appellant–Respondent.
Haynes and Boone, LLP, New York (Kenneth J. Rubinstein of counsel), for appellant-respondent. Backer Botts LLP, New York (Richard B. Harper of counsel), for respondent-appellant.
Haynes and Boone, LLP, New York (Kenneth J. Rubinstein of counsel), for appellant-respondent. Backer Botts LLP, New York (Richard B. Harper of counsel), for respondent-appellant.
SWEENY, J.P., DeGRASSE, MANZANET–DANIELS, FEINMAN, GISCHE, JJ.
Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Ira Gammerman, J.H.O.), entered May 9, 2013, after a jury verdict, finding against defendant on plaintiff's breach of contract claim, and dismissing plaintiff's claims of fraud, unanimously affirmed, without costs.
In answering “yes” to the yes or no question sent out by the jury during deliberations, the trial court responded meaningfully to the jury question ( see People v. Malloy, 55 N.Y.2d 296, 301, 449 N.Y.S.2d 168, 434 N.E.2d 237 [1982], cert. denied459 U.S. 847, 103 S.Ct. 104, 74 L.Ed.2d 93 [1982] ). The court's charges on breach of contract and interested witness as to plaintiff's principal were not prejudicial, nor was the language of the jury verdict sheet “suggestive” ( compare Leonard v. Davenport & Sons, 44 A.D.2d 781, 355 N.Y.S.2d 97 [1st Dept.1974] ). Further, since none of the defendant's employees were actors in the transactions at issue, or had a motive to shield themselves from blame, the court's charge, which generally followed that of PJI 1:92, was appropriate. It was also proper for the trial court to find plaintiff's explanation concerning missing documents insufficient to avoid that charge as a matter of law, and instead put the question to the jury ( see e.g. Gogos v. Modell's Sporting Goods, Inc., 87 A.D.3d 248, 254–255, 926 N.Y.S.2d 53 [1st Dept.2011] ).
Finally, “a trial court has broad authority to control the courtroom, rule on the admission of evidence, elicit and clarify testimony, expedite the proceedings and to admonish counsel and witnesses when necessary” (Campbell v. Rogers & Wells, 218 A.D.2d 576, 579, 631 N.Y.S.2d 6 [1995] ), and the record contains no evidence of bias, or any other action on the part of the court that deprived plaintiff of a fair trial.