86 N.Y.2d 54 (1995)
A valid jury verdict in a civil case requires participation by all six jurors in the deliberations on all issues presented, and a trial court errs when it refuses a request to conduct a limited inquiry into a juror’s possible non-participation.
Summary
Lyndon Sharrow, an ironworker, sued Dick Corporation and Southern Steel Corporation for negligence and violations of New York Labor Law § 241(6) after being injured at a construction site. During jury polling after a verdict in favor of Sharrow, one juror gave ambiguous responses, suggesting she may not have participated in all deliberations. The trial court denied a request for limited questioning of the juror. The New York Court of Appeals reversed, holding that the ambiguous responses raised sufficient doubt about the juror’s participation to warrant a limited inquiry. The Court emphasized the constitutional right to a trial by a six-member jury, which necessitates deliberation by all jurors on all issues.
Facts
Lyndon Sharrow, an ironworker for G & H Steel, was injured while moving a metal lockbox at a construction site. He sued the general contractor, Dick Corporation, and subcontractor, Southern Steel Corporation, for negligence and violations of Labor Law § 241(6). At the trial’s conclusion, the jury foreperson announced a verdict finding the defendants’ statutory violation to be the proximate cause of Sharrow’s injuries, awarding him $430,000 in damages. During the jury poll, Juror No. 5 answered “No” to the first question (violation of Labor Law). To subsequent questions on proximate cause, total damages and specific damages, she either offered ‘no response’ or simply said ‘no’.
Procedural History
The trial court entered judgment for Sharrow after denying a request to question Juror No. 5. The Appellate Division modified, ordering a new trial on pain and suffering damages unless the defendants stipulated to an additur. G & H Steel and Southern appealed. The Court of Appeals granted Sharrow’s motion to dismiss Southern’s appeal due to a stipulation to the additur. G & H Steel’s appeal remained before the Court of Appeals.
Issue(s)
Whether the trial court erred in refusing to conduct a limited inquiry to determine if a juror participated in deliberations on all issues when the juror’s responses during polling suggested possible non-participation.
Holding
Yes, because a valid jury verdict requires that all six jurors participate in the underlying deliberations, and the trial court’s refusal to inquire compromised the right to a trial by a full six-member jury.
Court’s Reasoning
The Court of Appeals emphasized the constitutional right to a six-member jury trial in civil cases, which necessitates all six jurors participating in deliberations on all issues. The Court noted that while a five-sixths verdict is permissible, all six jurors must engage in the deliberative process. Juror No. 5’s ambiguous responses during polling raised a legitimate question about her participation, warranting a limited inquiry by the trial court. The court distinguished a pre-discharge inquiry to clarify a verdict from a post-discharge attempt to impeach it, noting policies against post-trial juror questioning (finality of verdicts, preventing juror harassment, encouraging frank discussion). The court cited People v. Pickett, 61 N.Y.2d 773, indicating that a limited inquiry, without infringing upon the secrecy of deliberations, would be permissible. Because of the trial court’s error in failing to conduct a limited inquiry, the Court of Appeals reversed and ordered a new trial, stating “Even if ‘no response’ is considered the equivalent of ‘no award’ in reply to the questions on damages, juror No. 5 also offered ‘no response’ to the question whether plaintiff had been negligent. Her answers raised a legitimate question whether juror No. 5 had participated in the jury’s discussion of issues other than liability, and defense counsel appropriately requested a limited inquiry to clarify that juror No. 5 had participated in the deliberative process.”