Opinion
July 2, 1998
Appeal from the Supreme Court, Bronx County (Lottie Wilkins, J.).
Under the circumstances of this case, the court acted appropriately in directing a new trial ( see, e.g., Ayres v. Hertz Corp., 83 A.D.2d 952). Despite efforts by the trial court to allow the jury to "alter its original statement so as to conform to its real intention" ( Bernard v. Seyopp Corp., 11 A.D.2d 140, 141, affd 9 N.Y.2d 676, as quoted by Ryan v. Orange County Fair Speedway, 227 A.D.2d 609, 611), the jury never made its intentions plain on the record ( cf., Mayer v. Goldberg, 241 A.D.2d 309). The court, then, fearing that repeated resubmission of the proximate cause issue had irremediably confused the jury, and not out of simple disagreement with the verdict ( see, e.g., Mazariegos v. New York City Tr. Auth., 230 A.D.2d 608, 609-610), properly set the jury's verdict aside. Inasmuch as we are affirming the order, we do not reach defendants' alternative arguments for a new trial.
Concur — Sullivan, J.P., Milonas, Rubin, Williams and Andrias, JJ.