Saporito-Elliott v United Skates of America, Inc.
Attorneys and Parties
Brief Summary
Premises liability at a roller skating rink; alleged improper jury influence by court personnel during deliberations.
After a defense verdict finding no negligence, the Supreme Court, Suffolk County, denied plaintiffs’ motion under CPLR 4404(a) [motion to set aside a verdict and for a new trial in the interest of justice] to set aside the verdict and entered judgment dismissing the complaint.
The judgment dismissing the complaint and the denial of the CPLR 4404(a) motion were reversed; the complaint was reinstated and a new trial ordered.
A court clerk communicated with deliberating jurors about negligence, fault, and case facts—beyond the court’s instruction—impermissibly intruding on deliberations and usurping the court’s role to instruct on the law. This misconduct was not harmless and deprived plaintiffs of a fair trial.
Background
Plaintiff Lori Saporito-Elliott allegedly sustained injuries while roller skating at defendant’s facility. At trial, the jury, during deliberations, sent a note stating they had a question. The court directed a part clerk to tell the jury to write out the question. The clerk entered the jury room and, according to a juror affidavit, discussed negligence, fault, and certain case facts for 3–5 minutes. The jury then returned a defense verdict. Plaintiffs moved under CPLR 4404(a) to set aside the verdict in the interest of justice based on misconduct by court personnel, submitting a juror affidavit describing the exchange. Defendant submitted three juror affidavits (including a second affidavit from the same juror) stating the clerk’s conversation had no impact. Without holding a hearing, the Supreme Court denied the motion and entered judgment dismissing the complaint.
Lower Court Decision
The Supreme Court, Suffolk County, denied plaintiffs’ CPLR 4404(a) motion to set aside the verdict and for a new trial without a hearing and entered judgment on the defense verdict dismissing the complaint.
Appellate Division Reversal
The appeal from the order was dismissed as subsumed, and the issues were reviewed on the appeal from the judgment under CPLR 5501(a)(1) [scope of review on appeal allowing issues from certain prior orders to be reviewed upon appeal from the final judgment]. The Appellate Division reversed the judgment on the law and facts, granted plaintiffs’ CPLR 4404(a) motion, reinstated the complaint, awarded costs to plaintiffs, and remitted for a new trial.
Legal Significance
The decision underscores that litigants are entitled to a fair trial free from improper comments by the court or court personnel. Substantive ex parte communications by a clerk with a deliberating jury—especially about legal concepts and case facts—constitute misconduct that is not harmless, warranting a new trial under CPLR 4404(a). It also reiterates that issues from an interlocutory order may be reviewed on appeal from a final judgment under CPLR 5501(a)(1).
Any off-the-record, substantive communication by court staff with a deliberating jury about law or facts is improper and will likely require reversal and a new trial under CPLR 4404(a).