New York Law Review

Tag: Objections

  • Marine Midland Bank v. Russo Produce Co., 50 N.Y.2d 31 (1980): Preserving Objections for Appeal

    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.

  • People v. McDowell, 47 N.Y.2d 858 (1979): Preserving Objections for Appeal

    47 N.Y.2d 858 (1979)

    To preserve an issue for appellate review in New York, a party must make a specific objection at trial, clearly stating the grounds for the objection; otherwise, the issue is waived.

    Summary

    Defendants McDowell and Dunleavy appealed their convictions, arguing that the prosecutor’s cross-examination of McDowell was unduly prejudicial. The New York Court of Appeals affirmed the Appellate Division’s order upholding the convictions, holding that the defendants failed to properly preserve their objections for appellate review. The defense’s objections at trial were based on improper factual assumptions in the prosecutor’s questions, not on the prejudicial nature of the questioning itself. Because the specific grounds for the objections were not stated, the issue was not preserved. The court also found the defendants’ other preserved contentions to be without merit.

    Facts

    The specific facts of the underlying crime are not detailed in this memorandum decision. The relevant facts pertain to the conduct of the trial, specifically the cross-examination of defendant McDowell by the prosecutor and the defense’s objections during that cross-examination.

    Procedural History

    The defendants were convicted at trial. They appealed to the Appellate Division, which affirmed the convictions. They then appealed to the New York Court of Appeals.

    Issue(s)

    Whether the defendants preserved their objection to the prosecutor’s cross-examination of defendant McDowell for appellate review, given that their objections at trial were based on improper factual assumptions rather than the prejudicial nature of the questioning.

    Holding

    No, because the defendants did not specifically state the grounds for their objection as being the prejudicial nature of the questioning during the trial, they failed to preserve that issue for appellate review.

    Court’s Reasoning

    The Court of Appeals emphasized the importance of specifically stating the grounds for an objection at trial. The Court stated that “defendants having failed to properly state to the trial court the grounds for their objections or object to this line of questioning, this issue is not preserved for our review.” The court observed that on numerous occasions, the prosecutor asked McDowell whether he had heard prosecution witnesses make certain statements, and yet no objection was taken on the grounds that the questions were prejudicial. By failing to clearly articulate the basis for their objections, the defendants deprived the trial court of the opportunity to address the specific issue of prejudice and potentially remedy any harm. This decision reinforces the principle that appellate courts will generally only review issues that were properly raised and preserved in the trial court. This rule prevents “sandbagging” where a lawyer sits silently on an error, hoping to get a favorable result, but then using the error on appeal if the result is unfavorable.