From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Moore v. John Bohlsen Associates, Inc.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, First Department
Jun 30, 1988
141 A.D.2d 468 (N.Y. App. Div. 1988)

Opinion

June 30, 1988

Appeal from the Supreme Court, New York County (Alfred Ascione, J.).


Our examination of the record reveals that the special verdict sheet was, on its face, "unclear and confusing so as to create an issue as [to the] precise amount the jury intended to finally award the plaintiff". (Wingate v Long Is. R.R., 92 A.D.2d 797, 798.)

While we do not disturb the apportionment of fault, which neither party places in issue, we hold that the confusing and ambiguous wording of the verdict sheet serves to confirm the trial court's conclusion that the jurors experienced substantial confusion in reaching their verdict. A new trial solely on the issue of total damages, to which the present apportionment shall be applied, is, therefore, in order. (See, Pache v Boehm, 60 A.D.2d 867.)

Concur — Sandler, J.P., Ross, Asch, Kassal and Ellerin, JJ.


Summaries of

Moore v. John Bohlsen Associates, Inc.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, First Department
Jun 30, 1988
141 A.D.2d 468 (N.Y. App. Div. 1988)
Case details for

Moore v. John Bohlsen Associates, Inc.

Case Details

Full title:WILLIE M. MOORE, Respondent, v. JOHN BOHLSEN ASSOCIATES, INCORPORATED, et…

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

Date published: Jun 30, 1988

Citations

141 A.D.2d 468 (N.Y. App. Div. 1988)

Citing Cases

Williams v. Fisher

Furthermore, plaintiff personally guaranteed the debt to Tammac based on the same information from Grymin on…

Sullivan v. Locastro

Further, there is no merit to the defendants' contention that the testimony of the plaintiffs' economist was…