58 N.Y.2d at 649 Determining lack of prejudice warranting juror inquiry11 citing cases“since the circumstances to which the motion was directed were based on little more than speculation as to the possibility of prejudice, no testimonial inquiry of the jurors should have been undertaken at all”
- M.M. v. Weissler, 2024 NY Slip Op 51680(U) (N.Y. Sup. Ct., Westchester Cty. 2024).unpublished (since the circumstances to which the motion was directed were based on little more than speculation as to [*5]the possibility of prejudice, no testimonial inquiry of the jurors should have been undertaken at all)
- Boryszewski, David K. v. Henderson, John E., 129 A.D.3d 1465 (N.Y. App. Div. 4th Dep't 2015).publishedFinally, “on the record of this case, there was no showing of the ‘substantial risk of prejudice’ necessary to warrant the granting of the motion to set aside the verdict” based upon *1467 the allegedly improper communication between a jur…
- State v. Donald DD., 107 A.D.3d 1062 (N.Y. App. Div. 3d Dep't 2013).published Even assuming that claim to have been sufficiently documented, respondent failed to show that he had been prejudiced by the claimed misconduct (see Snediker v County of Orange, 58 NY2d 647, 649 [1982]; People v Dunbar Contr.
- Swartz v. St. Mary's Hosp. of Amsterdam, 101 A.D.3d 1273 (N.Y. App. Div. 2012).published Under these circumstances, the court did not abuse its discretion in determining that the jury was not improperly influenced by the attorney-juror (see Snediker v County of Orange, 58 NY2d 647, 649 [1982]; People v Artis, 90 AD3d 1240, 124…
- People v. Rhodes, 92 A.D.2d 744 (N.Y. App. Div. 4th Dep't 1983).publishedThe motion was “based on little more than speculation as to the possibility of prejudice” (Snediker v County of Orange, supra, p 649); thus, the court’s denial of the motion without a hearing was a proper exercise of discretion (see Snedik…
- Maione v. Pindyck, 32 A.D.3d 827 (N.Y. App. Div. 2d Dep't 2006).publishedAdditionally, while it was “clearly improper for the court to communicate with the juror[s] in the absence of the parties” (Brown v Moodie, 116 AD2d 980, 982 [1986]; see Silverman v New Rochelle Hosp., 98 AD2d 774 [1983]; Blaha v Lettmoden…
- Remillard v. Louis Williams, Inc., 59 A.D.3d 764 (N.Y. App. Div. 3d Dep't 2009).publishedMoreover, plaintiff neither alleged how the juror’s purported knowledge of her son impacted the jury deliberations nor made a showing that such knowledge prejudiced her case (see id. at 646 ; Peterson v Zuercher, 198 AD2d 797, 798 [1993];…
Other citing cases
- Tuckett v. State of New York, 273 N.E.3d 902 (N.Y. 2025).published
- Hersh v. Przydatek, 286 A.D.2d 984 (N.Y. App. Div. 4th Dep't 2001).published
- Nicolla v. Fasulo, 161 A.D.2d 966 (N.Y. App. Div. 3d Dep't 1990).published
v.
County of Orange
[*649] OPINION OF THE COURT
Memorandum.
The order of the Appellate Division should be affirmed, with costs.
Though, in the spirit of Alford v Sventek (53 NY2d 743, 745), the oral communication from the juror to the Trial Judge, and the communication between the juror and the clerk regarding the juror’s wife’s desire that the juror telephone her, should have been conveyed to counsel, we agree with the Appellate Division that, in light of the undisputed nature of these communications, no prejudice resulted. Moreover, on the record of this case, there was no showing of the “substantial risk of prejudice” necessary to warrant the granting of the motion to set aside the verdict (see People v Brown, 48 NY2d 388, 394).
Furthermore, the hearing Judge properly ruled that the thought processes of the jurors should not be invaded by questions concerning the possibility that their fellow juror’s prospective inability to keep his appointment had operated as an “exterior influence” affecting their votes. Indeed, since the circumstances to which the motion was directed were based on little more than speculation as to the possibility of prejudice, no testimonial inquiry of the jurors should have been undertaken at all (see People v Holmes, 72 AD2d 1, 6; Cangilos v Schermerhorn, 41 AD2d 780, 781).
Chief Judge Cooke and Judges Jasen, Gabrielli, Jones, Wachtler, Fuchsberg and Meyer concur.
On review of submissions pursuant to rule 500.2 (b) of the Rules of the Court of Appeals (22 NYCRR 500.2 [g]), order affirmed, with costs, in a memorandum.