Honigsberg v. New York City Transit Authority
Decision Date | 29 April 1964 |
Citation | 249 N.Y.S.2d 296,43 Misc.2d 1 |
Parties | Herman HONIGSBERG and Rosa F. Honigsberg, Plaintiffs, v. The NEW YORK CITY TRANSIT AUTHORITY, Defendant. |
Court | New York City Court |
Herbert J. Kaplain, New York City, for plaintiffs.
Sidney Brandes, Brooklyn, for defendant, Joseph Hittner, Brooklyn, of counsel.
Defendant moves to set aside the jury's verdict as against the law and the evidence, and 'because of the way the verdict was rendered'.
In view of the latter contention urged by the defendant, it behooves the Court to recount the colloquy which took place in the courtroom both before and after the jury returned with its verdict.
'
'In view of that, I move to set aside the verdict as against the law and the evidence, and because of the way the verdict was rendered.'
The Court shall first proceed to consider the contention raised by the defendant that the verdict was compromised.
A compromise verdict is one which is reached only by the surrender of conscientious convictions on one material issue by some jurors in return for a relinquishment of matters in their like settled opinion on another issue, and the result is one which does not hold the approval of the entire panel. North British & Mercantile Ins. Co. v. Parnell, 53 Ga.App. 178, 185 S.E. 122, 126. So that, while jurors may properly give great weight to the opinions of other jurors, and may make reasonable concessions as a result of argument and persuasion, a verdict arrived at by their surrender of conscientious convictions upon a material question by some of the jurors in return for a like surrender by others is a 'compromise verdict' and invalid. Simmons v. Fish, 210 Mass. 563, 97 N.E. 102, 105, Ann.Cas.1912D, 588.
Apart from the consideration that the foreman indicated in answer to the question posed by the Court that there is nothing in the rendition of the verdict, nor in the verdict itself, which even remotely suggests a compromise.
Since the deliberations of jurors are secret and have always been considered sacrosanct in perpetuating our form of jurisprudence, as indeed they should be, and, ordinarily cannot be shown by jurors' testimony nor can jury rooms be invaded to show that verdict rendered was indeed a compromise, the question arises, well then, how can a compromise verdict be detected and set aside?
Patently, when the verdict is irreconcilably inconsistent. Leonard v. Home Owners Loan Corp., 270 App.Div. 363, 785, 867, 60 N.Y.S.2d 78, affirmed 297 N.Y. 103, 75 N.E.2d 261. See also, Reilly v. Shapmar Realty Corp., 179 Misc. 614, 39 N.Y.S.2d 782, revised 267 App.Div. 198, 45 N.Y.S.2d 356; Zittrer v. Pitkin Douglass Corp., Sup .App.T., 29 N.Y.S.2d 210; Pompilio v. McGeory, 283 App.Div. 826, 129 N.Y.S.2d 13; Becker v. Singerland, 282 App.Div. 1106, 126 N.Y.S.2d 425; Parsons v. Great Atlantic & Pacific Tea Co., 233 App.Div. 195, 251 N.Y.S. 360; Zimmer v. Lehnert, 135 Misc. 270, 238 N.Y.S. 88; Kinsey v. William Spencer & Son Corp., 165 Misc. 143, 300 N.Y.S. 391, affirmed 255 App.Div. 995, 8 N.Y.S.2d 529, affirmed 281 N.Y. 601, 22 N.E.2d 168.
Latently, where disproportionate amounts ($5,000 to severely injured wife and $5,000 for her husband's loss of wife's services) show that the issue of contributory negligence was resolved by sympathy and a compromise verdict. McGlyn v. Johnson, 15 Misc.2d 881, 1028, 184 N.Y.S.2d 209; where the accident was materially contributed to by female plaintiff, and the verdict, despite its substantial size ($25,000), was, when contrasted with verdicts in like suits, inadequate. Resto v. Metropolitan Distributors, Inc., 1 Misc.2d 889, 150 N.Y.S.2d 672; where the very amount of the verdict, in the light of the injuries and special damages if plaintiff's evidence were to be believed, is confirmation of the fact that the jury's sympathy brought forth a compromise verdict (medical testimony confirmed plaintiff's serious and permanent injuries--verdict, $35,000) which constitutes sufficient reason to set aside verdict. Dean v. Hotel Greenwich Corp., 21 Misc.2d 702, 193 N.Y.S.2d 712.
The verdict rendered in this case is neither irreconcilably inconsistent (supra) nor are the amounts so disproportionate on all the evidence in this case as to warrant a finding that the same was compromised.
A verdict is the result of a trial by jury of issues of fact presented by the pleadings (plus testimony and evidence), and it is proper for jurors to harmonize their views and reach a verdict with proper regard for each other's opinions.
There was nothing in the foreman's report of the verdict, as rendered, which indicates that it was not the result of sound judgment, dispassionate consideration and conscientious reflection. Moreover, since the jurors, individually polled, answered affirmatively whether foreman's report of same meant that they had unanimously found a verdict in favor of the plaintiffs, as indicated, (supra) and verdict was accordingly so recorded, the verdict so recorded was the only verdict and foreman's statement reporting as to how or in what manner it was found was not the verdict. And also, there was no indication in this case, either in considering the record, the verdict itself or its rendition, that the jury had decided by lot whether the verdict shall have been for the plaintiff or the defendant. Mitchell v. Ehle, 10 Wend. 595.
Defendant also urges the setting aside of the verdict on the ground that it had been 'averaged.'
Although this is not an issue of first impression, there is a dearth of cases on the specific and pivotal question involved. It therefore behooves the Court to ascertain the attitude of other Courts and their analysis and disposition of the point involved.
A 'quotient verdict' is nothing more than a verdict by chance, is illegal, and must be set aside. North Tex. Producers Ass'n v. Jenkins, Tex.Civ.App., 342 S.W.2d 192, 195. It...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Manshul Const. Corp. v. Dormitory Authority of State
...A quotient verdict is "nothing more than a verdict by chance, is illegal and must be set aside." Honigsberg v. NYC Transit Authority, 43 Misc.2d 1, 249 N.Y.S.2d 296 (N.Y.Cty., 1964), citing North Texas Producers Assn. v. Jenkins, 342 S.W.2d 192 (Tex.Civ.App.). A quotient verdict may exist w......
-
Figliomeni v. Board of Ed. of City School Dist. of Syracuse
...N.Y.Civ.Prac., par. 4404.23, p. 44--69; see, also, 8 Carmody-Wait, 2d, N.Y. Practice, § 58:8; Honigsberg v. New York City Tr. Auth., 43 Misc.2d 1, 3--5, 249 N.Y.S.2d 296, 300--302.) It should be said that the afore-mentioned considerations are, of course, directed towards this case as it wa......
-
Klein v. Eichen
...15 Johns 87; see also North Tex Producers Assoc. v. Jenkins, Tex.Civ.App., 342 S.W.2d 192, 195; see also Honigsberg v. New York City Transit Authority, 43 Misc.2d 1, 249 N.Y.S.2d 296; see also Haarberg v. Schneider, 174 Neb. 334, 117 N.W.2d 796). This is so even if the amount of the verdict......
-
Sutton v. Piasecki Trucking, Inc., 1
...surrendered conscientious convictions upon a material issue in return for a similar surrender by others (see Honigsberg v. New York City Tr. Auth., 43 Misc.2d 1, 3, 249 N.Y.S.2d 296, cited in Figliomeni v. Board of Educ., 38 N.Y.2d 178, 186, 379 N.Y.S.2d 45, 341 N.E.2d 557). We additionally......
-
Table of Cases
...Hong v. County of Nassau , 139 AD2d 566, 527 NYS2d 66 (2d Dept 1988), §§13:07, 15:74 Honigsberg v. New York City Transit Authority , 43 Misc 2d 1, 7, 249 NYS2d 296, 303–04 (Civ Ct NY County 1964), §§34:44, 34:52 Hooks v. Court Street Medical, P.C. , 15 AD3d 544, 545, 790 NYS2d 679, 680 (2d ......
-
Jury Deliberations and Rendition of Verdict
...differing points of view somehow becoming aligned to produce a single result. [ See, e.g., Honigsberg v. New York City Transit Authority , 43 Misc2d 1, 7, 249 NYS2d 296, 304 (Civ Ct NY County 1964) (“[t]o anticipate each of the individual jurors to come forth and produce identical dollar ev......
-
Jury Deliberations and Rendition of Verdict
...differing points of view somehow becoming aligned to produce a single result. [ See, e.g., Honigsberg v. New York City Transit Authority , 43 Misc2d 1, 7, 249 NYS2d 296, 304 (Civ Ct NY County 1964) (“[t]o anticipate each of the individual jurors to come forth and produce identical dollar ev......
-
Jury Deliberations and Rendition of Verdict
...differing points of view somehow becoming aligned to produce a single result. [ See, e.g., Honigsberg v. New York City Transit Authority , 43 Misc2d 1, 7, 249 NYS2d 296, 304 (Civ Ct NY County 1964) (“[t]o anticipate each of the individual jurors to come forth and produce identical dollar ev......