Snediker v. County of Orange
Lawrence Snediker v. County of Orange
Opinion of the Court
Text extracted by OCR from a scanned original; check the original for exact wording.
*649 OPINION OF THE COURT
Memorandum.
The order of the Appellate Division should be affirmed, with costs.
Though, in the spirit of Alford v Sventek ( 53 NY2d 743, 745 ), the oral communication from the juror to the Trial Judge, and the communication between the juror and the clerk regarding the juror’s wife’s desire that the juror telephone her, should have been conveyed to counsel, we agree with the Appellate Division that, in light of the undisputed nature of these communications, no prejudice resulted. Moreover, on the record of this case, there was no showing of the “substantial risk of prejudice” necessary to warrant the granting of the motion to set aside the verdict (see People v Brown, 48 NY2d 388, 394 ).
Furthermore, the hearing Judge properly ruled that the thought processes of the jurors should not be invaded by questions concerning the possibility that their fellow juror’s prospective inability to keep his appointment had operated as an “exterior influence” affecting their votes. Indeed, since the circumstances to which the motion was directed were based on little more than speculation as to the possibility of prejudice, no testimonial inquiry of the jurors should have been undertaken at all (see People v Holmes, 72 AD2d 1, 6 ; Cangilos v Schermerhorn, 41 AD2d 780, 781 ).
Chief Judge Cooke and Judges Jasen, Gabrielli, Jones, Wachtler, Fuchsberg and Meyer concur.
On review of submissions pursuant to rule 500.2 (b) of the Rules of the Court of Appeals (22 NYCRR 500.2 [g]), order affirmed, with costs, in a memorandum.
How later courts describe this case
Explanatory parentheticals written by citing courts — 3 in all; the most informative distinct ones are shown.
-
("since the circumstances to which the motion was directed were based on little more than speculation as to [ ]the possibility of prejudice, no testimonial inquiry of the jurors should have been undertaken at all")
Cited by 21 cases
View all citing references →Relies on it most ⓘ
Citing references are not a citator: they show that a later opinion cites this case, not whether it followed, distinguished, or overruled it. Check negative history before relying on this case.