Matter of Barker v Union Corrugating Co.
Annotate this CaseDecided on May 26, 2021
Supreme Court, Onondaga County
In the Matter of the Petition of Eric Barker, Plaintiff,
against
Union Corrugating Company and Lowe's Home Centers, LLC, Defendants.
2015EF2865
Ralph S. Alexander Esq.- Plaintiff
Brady J. O'Malley Esq.-Defendants
Gerard J. Neri, J.
On May 25, 2021, Defendants Union Corrugating Company ("Union") and Lowe's Home Centers, LLC ("Lowes", and collectively as the "Defendants") filed a Notice for Application for Disclosure of Jury List (NYSCEF Doc. No. 257). Defendants base the relief sought on Judiciary Law §509(a) and New York Court Rules, Third Department §840.6, Disclosure of Jury Lists. Plaintiff opposes the relief sought.
In anticipation of the impending trial, Defendants seek an order of this Court "permitting disclosure of the list of potential jurors for the term of the Onondaga Supreme Court commencing June 10, 2021 and continuing through June 18, 2021" (see Notice for Application for Disclosure of Jury List, NYSCEF Doc. No. 257). Defendants allege the Court is empowered to grant the relief sought based on Judiciary Law §509(a) and 22 NYCRR §840.6. Defendant "seeks only the names of prospective jurors to 'investigate the biases, impartiality, prejudices, mental competence, and any other factors which might cause less than a fair trial'" (ibid, citing People v. Perkins, 125 AD2d 816, 817 [Third Dept. 1986], emphasis in original). Defendants proffer that they will not make a public disclosure of the requested information (ibid).
Plaintiff opposes the relief sought, first arguing that voir dire is the appropriate time to investigate potential juror bias (see Letter in Opposition, NYSCEF Doc. No. 258). Secondly, Plaintiff argues the disclosure of such information could lead to potential juror tampering (ibid). Plaintiff further notes the mere appearance of impropriety must be avoided (ibid citing Varano v. Forba Holdings, LLC, et al., Sup. Ct., Onondaga County, November 18, 2013, Karalunas, J., Index No. 2011-2128). Plaintiff also notes that the rule cited is specific to the Third Department and has not been adopted by the remaining Departments, including the Fourth Department.
The Court is denying the relief sought by Defendants. First, the Court is without [*2]jurisdiction to grant the relief sought. Judiciary Law §509(a) states in pertinent part: "Such questionnaires and records shall be considered confidential and shall not be disclosed except to the county jury board or as permitted by the appellate division" (Judiciary Law §509(a)). This Court is neither the county jury board nor the appellate division. Defendants cite to 22 NYCRR §840.6 as authority for this Court to grant the relief requested, however, the cited rule is one specific to the Third Department (see 22 NYCRR §840.6). As the Parties are well aware, this Court is under the jurisdiction of the Fourth Department and the Fourth Department has not made a similar delegation of authority. Further, there is no indication in this record that the Onondaga County Jury Commissioner was noticed.
Even were the Court empowered by the Fourth Department to entertain such relief, there are sound reason for not permitting the disclosure of juror identity prior to voir dire. Parties have a right to a jury trial guaranteed by the New York State Constitution (see NY Const. art. I, §2). The selection of jurors is governed by Judiciary Law, Article 16. As noted above, the records of the commissioner of jurors are confidential (see Judiciary Law §509(a)). "Improper influence, of course, embraces not merely corrupt attempts to affect the jury process, but even well-intentioned jury conduct which tends to put the jury in possession of evidence not introduced at trial" (People v. Brown, 48 NY2d 388, 393 [1979], citing United States v. Beach, 296 F.2d 153 [Fourth Cir. 1961]). Even the seemingly innocent characterization of Defendants' request as one to "investigate the biases, impartiality, prejudices, mental competence, and any other factors which might cause less than a fair trial" is one which lends itself to great mischief. Potential jurors are not parties to an action. Opening the door to de-facto cross-examination on items which one may find in an internet search based only on a name and general location of Onondaga County is hardly a stable foundation and would lead to the treatment of jurors as adverse parties instead of potential finders of fact. Further, the information sought has the real potential of becoming fodder for Batson challenges (see generally People v. Bridgeforth, 28 NY3d 567, 571 [2016] "We have adopted Batson under the State Constitution and prohibit discrimination against prospective jurors by either the People of the defense 'on the basis of race, gender or any other status that implicates equal protection concerns'" citing People v. Luciano, 10 NY3d 499, 502-503 [2008]; see also Edmonson v. Leesville Concrete Co., Inc., 500 U.S. 614 [1991]; see also Superior Sales & Salvage, Inc. v. Time Release Sciences, Inc., 224 AD2d 922 [Fourth Dept. 1996]). Pre-release of juror names for this type of investigation could be used surreptitiously to exclude a juror for cause. The Parties will have the opportunity in voir dire to follow the process which has served the courts well since the inception of jury selection and explore potential biases as related to this action. Defendants' request for potential juror names is denied.
NOW, THEREFORE, upon reading and filing the papers with respect to the Notice for Application for Disclosure of Jury List, and due deliberation having been had thereon, it is hereby
ORDERED, that the Defendants' request for potential juror names is DENIED.
Dated: May 26, 2021
HON. GERARD J. NERI, J.S.C.
ENTER.
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.
