 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
National Equipment Corp. v. Ruiz4/5/2005
Published by New York State Law Reporting Bureau pursuant to Judiciary Law § 431.
This opinion is uncorrected and subject to revision before publication in the Official Reports.
In this original CPLR Article 78 proceeding brought in this Court pursuant to CPLR §§ 506(b)(1) and 7804(b), petitioner National Equipment Corporation (hereinafter referred to as National Equipment) seeks (1) a writ of prohibition against respondent Supreme Court Justice Norma Ruiz, prohibiting her from "impeaching a duly reported verdict" in favor of National Equipment "by entering as a 'verdict' a different award that apportions liability and sets forth certain money damages against Petitioner," which was a defendant/third-party plaintiff in the underlying personal injury lawsuit entitled, Cirro Rodriguez v National Equipment Corporation v Ferrara Foods & Confections, Inc., venued in Supreme Court, Bronx County, Index No. 16482/95; (2) a writ of mandamus compelling Justice Ruiz "to enter the verdict duly reported and recorded on June 7, 2004" in petitioner's favor in the underlying lawsuit; (3) a stay of all proceedings in this matter pending the determination of the petition; and (4) an extension of time for National Equipment to make any post-trial motions up to 30 days after our determination of this proceeding. Ferrara Foods & Confections, Inc. (hereinafter referred to as "Ferrara Foods"), also a defendant below, filed a cross petition seeking virtually identical relief.
In the underlying personal injury suit, plaintiff Cirro Rodriguez, a respondent in this CPLR Article 78 proceeding, asserted a products liability claim against National Equipment and sought money damages for personal injuries which he sustained (the loss of three fingers and a thumb) while using a dough mixer in the course of his employment for Ferrara Foods. The underlying personal injury suit was tried before a jury in May and June 2004 with Justice Ruiz presiding. On June 4, 2004, Justice Ruiz charged the jury on the applicable law and instructed the jury that they were to decide the case on the basis of answers that they had to give to certain questions on the verdict sheet.
On June 7, 2004, the jury informed the court that it had reached a verdict, returning the verdict sheet (hereinafter referred to as the "first verdict sheet"), wherein it answered "Yes" to Questions 1 through 8, which read as follows:
1. Did defendant, National Equipment Corporation, distribute the dough mixer involved in this occurrence?
2. Was the defendant's dough mixer defective?
3. Did the defect exist when the dough mixer left the possession of National Equipment?
4. Was the defect a substantial factor in causing the plaintiff's injuries?
5. Was the third party defendant, Ferrara Foods & Confections negligent?
6. Was the third party defendant, Ferrara Foods & Confections' negligence a substantial factor in causing the plaintiff's injuries?
7. Were any of the key safety feature(s) of the dough mixer substantially altered by third party defendant, Ferrara Foods?
8. Was the substantial alteration made by third-party defendant a substantial factor in causing plaintiff's injury?
The written instruction following Question Eight advised the jury that if it answered "Yes" to that question, it should proceed no further, and should report its verdict to the court. Instead, the jury continued in its deliberations and proceeded to apportion and assess damages in response to Questions Nine through Twelve. Justice Ruiz examined the first verdict sheet and advised counsel that the verdict was inconsistent b
Page 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 New York Personal Injury Attorneys
Personal Injury Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|