Benson v General Motors Corp.

[*1] Benson v General Motors Corp. 2009 NY Slip Op 51166(U) [23 Misc 3d 147(A)] Decided on June 10, 2009 Appellate Term, First Department Published by New York State Law Reporting Bureau pursuant to Judiciary Law § 431. As corrected in part through June 12, 2009; it will not be published in the printed Official Reports.

Decided on June 10, 2009
APPELLATE TERM OF THE SUPREME COURT, FIRST DEPARTMENT
PRESENT: McKeon, P.J., Schoenfeld, JJ.
570767/07

Kathleen Benson, Plaintiff-Respondent,

against

General Motors Corp., Defendant, -and- Hustedt Chevrolet, Inc., Defendant-Appellant.

Defendant Hustedt Chevrolet, Inc. appeals from an order of the Civil Court of the City of New York, New York County (Matthew F. Cooper, J.), entered September 17, 2007, which granted plaintiff's motion to set aside the jury verdict and ordered a new trial with respect to plaintiff's claims of revocation of acceptance and breach of implied warranty.

Per Curiam.

Order (Matthew F. Cooper, J.), entered September 17, 2007, affirmed, with $10 costs.

The trial court's determination to set aside the jury verdict pursuant to CPLR 4404(a) was appropriate in view of the court's finding that the verdict was the product of substantial jury confusion (see Dinino v D.A.T. Construction Corp., 267 AD2d 148 [1999]), as reflected by the jury's internally inconsistent answers to the interrogatories contained on the verdict sheet. Notwithstanding the court's attempted curative instructions and a directive to the jury to reconsider its verdict, the jury returned with a second verdict which was both internally inconsistent and inconsistent with the first verdict. The record shows that the jury followed neither the court's curative instructions nor the instructions set forth in the verdict sheet.

THIS CONSTITUTES THE DECISION AND ORDER OF THE COURT.
I concur
Decision Date: June 10, 2009