63 N.Y.2d 1004 (1984)

Failure to object to a jury charge renders the charge the law of the case, and the sufficiency of the evidence is then judged by the standards articulated in that charge.

Summary

This case addresses the consequences of failing to object to a jury charge. The Court of Appeals held that when no exception is taken to the jury charge, the charge becomes the law applicable to the case. Consequently, the sufficiency of the evidence to support the jury’s verdict must be assessed in light of the charge as given. The court found that because the defendants were treated as a single unit in the jury charge, the evidence against all defendants must be considered collectively to determine the sufficiency of the evidence against each, thus it was error to set aside the verdict against the estate of Lessie Cool.

Facts

The executors of Lessie Cool’s estate appealed a decision setting aside a jury verdict and dismissing the complaint against them. The basis of the appeal was that the trial court’s decision to set aside the jury verdict was proper and that the trial court erred in its instructions to the jurors.

Procedural History

The trial court initially set aside the jury’s verdict and dismissed the complaint against the executors of Lessie Cool’s estate. The Appellate Division reversed this decision. William Cool’s appeal was dismissed, and a motion for reconsideration was denied. The executors of Lessie Cool’s estate then appealed to the Court of Appeals.

Issue(s)

1. Whether the trial court erred in its instructions to the jurors.
2. Whether the trial court properly set aside the jury verdict against the executors.

Holding

1. No, because the assertion of error in the trial court’s charge to the jury was not preserved for appellate review as no exceptions or requests to charge were made by trial counsel for the executors.
2. No, because the failure to object to the jury charge made that charge the law of the case, and the sufficiency of the evidence must be judged by the standards articulated in that charge.

Court’s Reasoning

The Court of Appeals reasoned that the failure to object to the jury charge had significant consequences. It cited Up-Front Inds. v U. S. Inds., stating that the law as stated in the charge becomes the law applicable to the determination of the parties’ rights. The Court stated that the sufficiency of the evidence must be determined considering all the evidence against all defendants, as the charge treated them collectively. Because the trial court found sufficient evidence to establish liability against William Cool, it was necessarily sufficient to support the verdict against Lessie Cool’s estate, given the jury charge. Therefore, it was an error to set aside the verdict against the estate based on the evidence against her alone. The court emphasized that discrete correlation of the evidence should not be used to establish liability of each defendant separately when the charge treated them collectively. The court, in essence, held the executors to the consequences of their trial counsel’s inaction.