GROPPER v. [And Other Actions.] (1998)

Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Ira Gammerman, J.), entered May 16, 1997, which, after this Court reinstated the jury verdict in defendants' favor (234 A.D.2d 171, 651 N.Y.S.2d 469, lv. denied 90 N.Y.2d 807, 664 N.Y.S.2d 268, 686 N.E.2d 1363), granted judgment to defendants and dismissed plaintiff's complaint, and order, same court and Justice, entered on or about August 20, 1997, which denied plaintiff's subsequent motion to set aside the jury verdict, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

 The issue raised by plaintiff on that appeal, i.e., that the word “injury”, as it appeared on the verdict sheet utilized by the jury during the liability portion of the trial of this matter, constituted reversible error, was properly raised by plaintiff in her response to defendant's prior appeal from the trial court's order granting a mistrial (see, CPLR 5501[a][1];  Parochial Bus Systems v. Bd. of Educ., 60 N.Y.2d 539, 545-546, 470 N.Y.S.2d 564, 458 N.E.2d 1241), and implicitly rejected by this Court when we reversed and reinstated the jury verdict (see, 234 A.D.2d 171, 651 N.Y.S.2d 469).  Accordingly, the argument must be rejected on grounds of law of the case.   We note that plaintiff's contention is, in any event, without merit (see, Miglino v. Supermarkets General Corp., 243 A.D.2d 451, 662 N.Y.S.2d 818;  Penn v. Oyster Bay, 119 A.D.2d 815, 501 N.Y.S.2d 444, lv. denied 68 N.Y.2d 609, 508 N.Y.S.2d 1026, 501 N.E.2d 36), particularly since plaintiff did in fact introduce evidence regarding her injury during the liability phase of the trial.

 The trial court properly denied plaintiff's motion to set aside the reinstated jury verdict as untimely (CPLR 4404 and 4405;  Pioli v. Morgan Guaranty Trust Co. of New York, 199 A.D.2d 144, 605 N.Y.S.2d 254, lv. denied 87 N.Y.2d 801, 637 N.Y.S.2d 688, 661 N.E.2d 160), the motion having been interposed almost one year after the verdict was rendered.   In any event, we also agree with the trial court that plaintiff's claim of jury coercion by a court officer is specious (compare, Burtch v. Shah 230 A.D.2d 223, 661 N.Y.S.2d 118).

MEMORANDUM DECISION.