Elzahr v Palladino
Annotate this CaseDecided on July 13, 2010
Civil Court of the City of New York, Richmond County
Amira Elzahr and AZIZ ELZAHR, Plaintiff(s),
against
Christopher Palladino, Defendant.
300035-RTS-2010
Edward J. Pavia, Jr., Esq.,
Attorney for Plaiintiff - Amira Elzahr
3309 Richmond Avenue
Staten Island, NY 10312
George Sacco, Esq.,
Purcell & Ingrao
811 Castleton Avenue
Staten Island, NY 10310
Orlando Marrazzo, J.
Plaintiff moves for an order vacating the jury verdict after trial in defendant's favor that
dismissed the complaint, and found zero liability on defendant's part. As is set forth below,
plaintiff's motion is denied in its entirety.
On March 29, 2010, at the conclusion of the trial in this action, the jury unanimously
announced its verdict to the court by answering question number 1 on the verdict sheet, "Was the
defendant Christopher Palladino negligent?", with an answer of "no." Plaintiff's counsel
moments after the jury was discharged spoke with juror number 6, [*2]Marvin Coaker, and juror number 5, Russell Benedetto, and asked
them about their impressions of the case. During that conversation both Coaker and Benedetto
allegedly told plaintiff's counsel that it was their intent to attribute fault to both the plaintiff and
to the defendant. However, they were confused about the verdict sheet. Plaintiff's counsel alleges
that Mr. Coaker and Mr. Benedetto indicated to him that despite the fact that they thought that
both parties were negligent, they answered question number 1 "no" because they thought that by
answering "yes" it would mean that they were finding the defendant completely at fault.
After plaintiff's counsel had his conversation with Mr. Coaker and Mr. Benedetto he
immediately reported the substance of the conversation to the court. The court thereafter
telephoned defendant's counsel who returned to the courthouse, and in the presence of the court,
plaintiff's counsel on the record made a statement summarizing his conversation with Mr. Coaker
and Mr. Benedetto.
Plaintiff has attached to his motion affidavits of Mr. Coaker and Mr. Benedetto. In
their respective affidavits, both Mr. Coaker and Mr. Benedetto aver that they both were confused
by the verdict sheet, and that they each intended to find both the plaintiff and the defendant
negligent and to apportion liability between them. Plaintiff has also attached a third affidavit
from the foreperson of the jury, Jane Collura-Cambria. Ms. Collura-Cambria in her affidavit
swears that she also intended to find both parties negligent, but through answering the first
question on the verdict questioner "yes" she would be finding the defendant completely at fault
which was not her intention.
Pursuant to CPLR 4404(a), a trial court, "may set aside a verdict ... and direct that
judgment be entered in favor of a party entitled to judgment as a matter of law."
In considering such a motion, " the trial court must afford the party opposing the
motion every inference which may properly be drawn from the facts presented, and the facts
must be considered in a light most favorable to the nonmovant' " (Hand v Field, 15 AD3d 542,
543 [App Div, 2nd Dept, 2005]; quoting Szczerbiak v. Pilat, 90 NY2d 553, 556 [1997].)
It is well settled that, a trial court may set aside a jury verdict as unsupported by
legally sufficient evidence only if there is " simply no valid line of reasoning and permissible
inferences which could possibly lead rational [individuals] to the conclusion reached by the jury
on the basis of the evidence presented at trial (Soto v New York City Tr. Auth., 6 NY3d 487, 492 [2006] quoting
Cohen v Hallmark Cards, 45 NY2d 493, 499 [1978]; Acosta v City of New York, 72 AD3d 624 [App Div, 2nd Dept,
2010].)
Ordinarily, jurors may not impeach their verdict once they are discharged (see
Hersh [*3]v New York City Tr. Auth., 290 AD2d 258, 259
[App Div, 1st Dept, 2002].) In two limited circumstances, courts have permitted the use of juror
affidavits to impeach a verdict (see generally Moisakis v Allied Bldg. Prods. Corp., 265
AD2d 457 [App Div, 2nd Dept, 1999], lv. denied 95 NY2d 752 [2000]; see also
Hersh, at., 290 AD2d 258.)
The first exception is where the affidavits demonstrate that a ministerial error
occurred in the jury's reporting of the verdict, yet the alleged error may not concern issues of
how the jury's verdict was reached (see generally Moisakis, 265 AD2d 457).
The second exception to the rule prohibiting juror impeachment of a verdict
mandates proof, on the trial record, evidencing a basis for finding juror confusion (Wingate v
Long Island Railroad 92 AD2d 797 [App Div, 1st Dept, 1983].)
Here, there were no objections raised as to the jury charge, jury verdict sheet and
jury verdict (see generally Arizmendi v City of New York, 56 NY2d 753 [1982];
Barry v. Manglass, 55 NY2d 803 [1981]; Breen-Burns v Scarsdale Woods
Homeowners Asso., Inc., [App Div, 1st Dept, 2010].) In matter of fact, the court had a
pre-charge conference with plaintiff's counsel and defendant's counsel and the attorneys settled
on the language that was used in the jury questioner. Moreover, the jury immediately after
rendering its verdict was polled and each and every jury member affirmed their verdict.
Additionally, the jury verdict sheet itself, including the jury findings entered thereon, did not
reflect any inconsistent or factually unsupported findings. On the face of the trial record, there
was no evidence of jury confusion. As such, given the instant circumstances, the 3 (three) juror
affidavits submitted by plaintiff on its motion, both of which were produced subsequent to the
discharge of the jury, could not be relied upon to impeach the juries verdict in favor of the
defendant herein (see Moisakis, 265 AD2d at 458; cf. Hersh, 290 AD2d 258).
Contrary to the plaintiff's contention, this court viewing the facts in the light most
favorable to the plaintiff herein, sees no valid line of reasoning and permissible inferences which
could possibly have led rational individuals to conclude, based upon the evidence presented, that
the defendants were liable. In sum, the plaintiff's version of the events was not, "contrary to
common experience, requiring defendant's testimony to be disregarded as being without
evidentiary value (Cruz v New York
City Tr. Auth., 31 AD3d 688, 690 [App Div, 2nd Dept, 2006]; affd. 8 NY3d
825, 828 [2007].)
The court notes that the defendant's verdict herein could not be impeached on basis
of juror confusion, where there were no objections raised by plaintiff's counsel as to jury charge,
jury verdict sheet. The jury was polled and affirmed their verdict, and jury verdict sheet itself,
including jury findings entered thereon, did not reflect any [*4]inconsistent or factually unsupported findings. The court
emphasizes that the jury verdict sheets had the blessings of both the plaintiff' counsel as well as
the defendant's counsel.
Accordingly, plaintiff's motion to vacate the jury verdict after trial in defendants
favor is denied.
This constitutes the trial order and decision of the court.
Dated: July 13, 2010
Staten Island, New York
_________________
Orlando Marrazzo, Jr.,
Judge, Civil Court
ASN by__________in Court
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.