Natl. Equip. Corp. v. Ruiz

• Decision Date: 05 April 2005
• Docket Number: 5100.
• Citation: 2005 NY Slip Op 02606,794 N.Y.S.2d 2,19 A.D.3d 5
• Parties: In the Matter of NATIONAL EQUIPMENT CORPORATION, Petitioner, v. NORMA RUIZ, as Justice of the Supreme Court, et al., Respondents.
• Court: New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division

19 A.D.3d 5

794 N.Y.S.2d 2

2005 NY Slip Op 02606

In the Matter of NATIONAL EQUIPMENT CORPORATION, Petitioner, v. NORMA RUIZ, as Justice of the Supreme Court, et al., Respondents.

5100.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York, First Department.

April 5, 2005.

Proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 78 (initiated in the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court in the First Judicial Department pursuant to CPLR 506 [b] [1] and 7804 [b]) to prohibit respondent Supreme Court Justice from entering judgment in the underlying personal injury action.

Eustace & Marquez, White Plains (Mark A. Solomon and Rose M. Cotter of counsel), for National Equipment Corporation, petitioner.

Newman Fitch Altheim Myers, P.C., New York City (Francine Scotto of counsel), for Ferrara Foods & Confections, Inc., cross petitioner-respondent.

Eliot Spitzer, Attorney General, New York City (Katherine E. Timon of counsel), for Hon. Norma Ruiz, respondent.

The Durst Law Firm, P.C., New York City (John E. Durst, Jr. of counsel), for Cirro Rodriguez, respondent.

OPINION OF THE COURT

CATTERSON, J.

In this original CPLR article 78 proceeding brought in this Court pursuant to CPLR 506 (b) (1) and 7804 (b), petitioner National Equipment Corporation (hereinafter referred to as National Equipment) seeks (1) a writ of prohibition against respondent Supreme Court Justice Norma Ruiz, prohibiting her from "impeaching a duly reported verdict" in favor of National Equipment "by entering as a`verdict' a different award that apportions liability and sets forth certain money damages against Petitioner," which was a defendant and third-party plaintiff in the underlying personal injury lawsuit entitled Cirro Rodriguez v National Equipment Corporation and Ferrara Foods & Confections, Inc., venued in Supreme Court, Bronx County, Index No. 16482/95; (2) a writ of mandamus compelling Justice Ruiz "to enter the verdict duly reported and recorded on June 7, 2004" in petitioner's favor in the underlying lawsuit; (3) a stay of all proceedings in this matter pending the determination of the petition; and (4) an extension of time for National Equipment to make any posttrial motions up to 30 days after our determination of this proceeding. Ferrara Foods & Confections, Inc. (hereinafter referred to as Ferrara Foods), also a defendant below, filed a cross petition seeking virtually identical relief.

In the underlying personal injury suit, plaintiff Cirro Rodriguez, a respondent in this CPLR article 78 proceeding, asserted a products liability claim against National Equipment and sought money damages for personal injuries which he sustained (the loss of three fingers and a thumb) while using a dough mixer in the course of his employment for Ferrara Foods. The underlying personal injury suit was tried before a jury in May and June 2004 with Justice Ruiz presiding. On June 4, 2004, Justice Ruiz charged the jury on the applicable law and instructed the jurors that they were to decide the case on the basis of answers that they had to give to certain questions on the verdict sheet.

On June 7, 2004, the jury informed the court that it had reached a verdict, returning the verdict sheet (hereinafter referred to as the first verdict sheet), wherein it answered "Yes" to questions 1 through 8, which read as follows:

"1. Did defendant, National Equipment Corporation, distribute the dough mixer involved in this occurrence?

"2. Was the defendant's dough mixer defective?

"3. Did the defect exist when the dough mixer left the possession of National Equipment?

"4. Was the defect a substantial factor in causing the plaintiff's injuries?

"5. Was the third party defendant, Ferrara Foods & Confections negligent?

"6. Was the third party defendant, Ferrara Foods & Confections' negligence a substantial factor in causing the plaintiff's injuries?

"7. Were any of the key safety feature(s) of the dough mixer substantially altered by third party defendant, Ferrara Foods?

"8. Was the substantial alteration made by third-party defendant a substantial factor in causing plaintiff's injury?"

The written instruction following question 8 advised the jury that if it answered "Yes" to that question, it should proceed no further, and should report its verdict to the court. Instead, the jury continued in its deliberations and proceeded to apportion and assess damages in response to questions 9 through 12.¹ Justice Ruiz examined the first verdict sheet and advised counsel that the verdict was inconsistent because the jurors had proceeded beyond question 8.

It is uncontroverted that the attorneys were not shown the jury's responses to the questions on the first verdict sheet at that time. It is also uncontroverted that the first verdict sheet was never announced or published in open court, nor was it affirmed in open court by the jury. The parties were also not afforded the right to poll the jury about its answers on the first verdict sheet. Furthermore, the clerk of the court never entered the answers to the first verdict sheet into the official minutes.

Justice Ruiz then provided the jurors with a blank verdict sheet identical to the first verdict sheet, and instructed them to continue their deliberations and follow the directions after each question on what was now a second verdict sheet. The jury reconvened to deliberate, and, on June 7, 2004, it returned a verdict with responses to the questions on the second verdict sheet. This second verdict sheet had the same answers to questions 1 through 8 as contained in the first verdict sheet, finding that both National Equipment and Ferrara Foods had caused plaintiff's injuries. This time the jury stopped, as directed, after answering question 8 and did not answer questions 9 through 12 on the second verdict sheet. Therefore, while the jury answered "yes" to the questions establishing liability on the part of both defendants, the jury did not apportion liability against either National Equipment or Ferrara Foods (question 12) on the second verdict sheet, and damages were not assessed. The second verdict sheet was then reported and recorded in open court on June 7, 2004, and the jury affirmed its findings as set forth in the second verdict sheet. Although the jury clearly found both defendants liable for plaintiff's injuries, the court entered judgment for the defendants due to an error in the instructions on both verdict sheets.

On June 14, 2004, Justice Ruiz held a conference in which she advised the parties that she was sua sponte going to enter judgment consistent with the jury's responses to the questions on the unrecorded first verdict sheet because "the Court inadvertently had the jurors come back with a different verdict because the Court was incorrect when it assumed that the jurors misunderstood an instruction on the verdict sheet."² Justice Ruiz subsequently explained that there was an incorrect instruction at the end of question 8 of the first verdict sheet; notwithstanding that incorrect instruction, the jurors correctly completed the first verdict sheet anyway.

Both National Equipment and Ferrara Foods now argue that Justice Ruiz violated their due process rights in sua sponte reversing the outcome of the trial by setting aside the verdict in their favor, which was contained in the second verdict sheet, and entering a judgment in favor of the plaintiff based upon the unannounced, unaffirmed and rejected first verdict sheet; furthermore, the parties had no opportunity to poll the jury following Justice Ruiz' off-the-record meeting with the jury, where she discussed the verdict outside the presence of the parties. Both National Equipment and Ferrara Foods also argue that Justice Ruiz lacked jurisdiction to enter a verdict in this action based on the first verdict sheet, and that she exceeded her authorized powers in doing so.

Based upon the foregoing, National Equipment and Ferrara Foods are seeking a writ of prohibition against Justice Ruiz entering a verdict in favor of the plaintiff in the amount of $4,862,063, and apportioning liability 25% against National Equipment and 75% against Ferrara Foods. National Equipment and Ferrara Foods are also seeking a writ of mandamus against Justice Ruiz, to compel her to enter the duly reported and recorded verdict in their favor. Additionally, National Equipment maintains that Justice Ruiz' actions unfairly shifted the risks and costs of taking an appeal from the plaintiff in the underlying personal injury action to National Equipment, and unfairly relieved the plaintiff of having to preserve any issue for appellate review.

The Attorney General, on behalf of Justice Ruiz, cross-moved to dismiss the petition on the grounds that it failed to state a cause of action, arguing that prohibition does not lie to enjoin Justice Ruiz from entering judgment on the first verdict because the judge acted consistent with her power and authority. Alternatively, the Attorney General argues that even if Justice Ruiz acted in excess of her jurisdiction or power, prohibition does not lie because National Equipment and Ferrara Foods have access to another adequate legal remedy — they could raise on appeal issues about the legal sufficiency of the judgment.

The Attorney General maintains that mandamus does not lie to compel a discretionary act in which the officer may exercise judgment or discretion. He further argues that any determination concerning this matter is not simply a ministerial act, but one requiring the exercise of discretion by a judicial officer in interpreting the law, and that therefore, mandamus is not warranted here.

It is well settled that prohibition is an extraordinary remedy that lies where there is a clear legal right to the relief requested, and where one seeks either to prevent a court from proceeding or threatening to proceed without jurisdiction, or to restrain a court from exceeding its authorized powers in a proceeding over which it has jurisdiction. (See Matter...