Court Opinion

ID: 9874329
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-09-26 22:04:18.207257+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:46:46.981358
License: Public Domain

Friedman, J.P.
(concurring). In view of the unusually egregious and pervasive misconduct of defense counsel at trial, as described in the majority opinion, I concur in the affirmance of the order granting plaintiff a new trial, notwithstanding her counsel’s failure to move for an order declaring a mistrial before the verdict was rendered. I write separately, however, to note that our disposition of this appeal should not be construed as a retreat from the general principle that a party who fails to move for a mistrial before the case is submitted to the fact-finder, in spite of being aware of grounds for doing so, will not be granted relief on a motion to set aside a disappointing verdict on those grounds (see Virgo v Bonavilla, 49 NY2d 982, 984 [1980]; Bertram v Columbia Presbyterian/N.Y. Presbyt. Hosp., 126 AD3d 473 [1st Dept 2015], lv denied 26 NY3d 905 [2015]; Boyd v Manhattan & Bronx Surface Tr. Operating Auth., *6779 AD3d 412, 413 [1st Dept 2010]; Selzer v New York City Tr. Auth., 100 AD3d 157, 162 [1st Dept 2012]; Califano v City of New York, 212 AD2d 146, 153 [1st Dept 1995]; Schein v Chest Serv. Co., 38 AD2d 929 [1st Dept 1972]). As the Court of Appeals has explained, “A party is not permitted to speculate upon a favorable verdict before asserting a claim that could properly be made during trial” (Virgo, 49 NY2d at 984).
It is only in the rare case where the misconduct of opposing counsel was so wrongful and persistent as to constitute a fundamental error and a gross injustice that a trial court may providently exercise its discretion under CPLR 4404 (a) to set aside the verdict on the grounds of such misconduct, in spite of the aggrieved party’s failure to make a timely mistrial motion (see Boyd, 79 AD3d at 413; Heller v Louis Provenzano, Inc., 257 AD2d 378, 379 [1st Dept 1999]). Although the instant appeal presents a close question, my ultimate conclusion is that this is one of those rare cases. I therefore concur in the affirmance of the order under review.
Feinman and Gische, JJ., concur with Renwick, J.; Friedman, J.R, concurs in a separate opinion.
Order, Supreme Court, Bronx County, entered on or about May 13, 2015, affirmed, without costs.