Marine Midland Bank v. Russo Produce Co., 50 N.Y.2d 31 (1980)
To preserve an objection for appellate review, counsel must make a specific and timely objection, and a general objection without requesting additional clarification or instruction is insufficient.
Summary
In a personal injury action, after initial deliberations, the jury announced a split verdict. Defense counsel objected, claiming inconsistency and excessiveness. The trial court, over objection, reinstructed the jury to reconsider. Defense counsel again objected generally but without specific requests for clarification. The New York Court of Appeals affirmed the Appellate Division’s order, holding that the defense counsel’s failure to properly preserve objections to the court’s procedure and supplemental instructions precluded appellate review. The Court emphasized the importance of specific and timely objections to allow the trial court to correct any errors.
Facts
During deliberations in a personal injury case, the jury initially delivered a verdict awarding $500,000 for personal suffering and disability, and $350,000 for negligence. Defense counsel objected, arguing the verdict was inconsistent and excessive. The trial court, instead of declaring a mistrial, decided to provide supplemental instructions to the jury and direct them to reconsider their decision. The defense counsel made a general objection to this procedure.
Procedural History
The trial court reinstructed the jury after the initial verdict. Defense counsel objected generally, without requesting specific clarifying instructions. The jury then rendered a subsequent verdict of $850,000, upon which judgment was entered. The Appellate Division affirmed, and the case was appealed to the New York Court of Appeals.
Issue(s)
Whether the defense counsel’s general objection to the trial court’s supplemental instructions, without requesting additional or clarifying instructions, was sufficient to preserve the objection for appellate review.
Holding
No, because the defense counsel failed to make specific objections or requests for clarification to the supplemental instructions. This failure to properly preserve their objections precluded appellate review.
Court’s Reasoning
The Court of Appeals emphasized the necessity of preserving objections to allow trial courts the opportunity to correct errors. The court noted that “In view of counsels’ failure to preserve their objections to the procedure adopted by the court and to its supplemental instructions by appropriate exceptions or requests, no legal error is presented.” By lodging only a general objection, and by failing to request additional or clarifying instructions, the defense forfeited the right to raise the issue on appeal. The Court found that the jury’s subsequent verdict of $850,000 was properly received as defense counsel did not properly object to the courts instructions.