New York Court of Appeals, 2012

Holstein v. Community General Hospital of Greater Syracuse

New York Court of Appeals · Decided November 20, 2012

20 N.Y.3d 892; 980 N.E.2d 523

Cases that cite this one

9 later published cases cite this decision.

Fitzgerald v. Kula (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2021)
Rosenthal v. Sperling (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2024)
Caldwell v. New York City Tr. Auth. (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2021)
Rueda v. Elmhurst Woodside, LLC (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2020)
Monzon v. Porter (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2019)
SCHULTZ, DONALD v. EXCELSIOR ORTHOPAEDICS, LLP (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2015)
MAZELLA, JANICE v. BEALS, M.D., WILLIAM (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2014)
Mazella v. Beals (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2014)
Mazella v. Beals (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2014)

This list shows which later cases cite this one. It does not say how they treated it, and no review of that has been done. Not a substitute for Shepard’s or KeyCite — verify before relying.

Opinion of the Court

OPINION OF THE COURT

Memorandum.

The order of the Appellate Division should be affirmed, with costs.

Plaintiff Tina Holstein commenced this medical malpractice action seeking damages for injuries she sustained based on the *893alleged negligence of an employee of defendant Community General Hospital of Greater Syracuse (the Hospital). Following trial, the jury returned a verdict on liability, by a vote of five to one, in favor of Holstein and awarded approximately $1.7 million in damages. After the verdict was announced, the Hospital requested that the jury be polled. In response, the court remarked: “Jury be polled? They have signed. They each have individually signed.” The Hospital’s counsel stated: “Okay. All right. Thank you” and the jury was dismissed. Two weeks later, the Hospital moved to set aside the verdict and requested a new trial. Supreme Court denied the motion and the Appellate Division affirmed Supreme Court’s judgment awarding plaintiff damages (86 AD3d 911 [4th Dept 2011]).

In Duffy v Vogel, we held that a party has an absolute right to poll the jury and a court’s denial of that right mandates reversal and a new trial (12 NY3d 169, 176-177 [2009]). In this case, however, it was not unreasonable for the trial court to conclude that the request had been withdrawn or waived in light of the nature of counsel’s response to the judge’s inquiry.

Chief Judge Lippman and Judges Ciparick, Graffeo, Read, Smith and Pigott concur.

Order affirmed, with costs, in a memorandum.

Case-law data current through December 31, 2025. Source: CourtListener bulk data.